Woodmere, Inc., and Cross-Appellant v. National Labor Relations Board, And

Ninth Circuit

Woodmere, Inc., and Cross-Appellant v. National Labor Relations Board, And

432 F.2d 559, 75 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2351, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7210

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 25, 1970·No. 24552·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Woodmere, Inc., petitions for review of a decision of the National Labor Relations Board, reported at 175 N.L.R.B. No. 69. The Board cross-petitions for enforcement of its order. It adopted the findings of fact and the reasoning of the trial examiner and ordered Wood-mere to cease and desist from violating subsections 8(a) (2) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (2) and (1). Wood-mere had entered into a collective bargaining contract with one union when a question of representation existed because another union was claiming to represent a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. We have examined the record and the findings of fact of the trial examiner and we conclude, as did the Board, that the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, and that the trial examiner correctly applied the law.

Woodmere’s petition for review is dismissed. The Board’s petition for enforcement is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Woodmere, Inc., petitions for review of a decision of the National Labor Relations Board, reported at 175 N.L.R.B. No. 69. The Board cross-petitions for enforcement of its order. It adopted the findings of fact and the reasoning of the trial examiner and ordered Wood-mere to cease and desist from violating subsections 8(a) (2) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (2) and (1). Wood-mere had entered into a collective bargaining contract with one union when a question of representation existed because another union was claiming to represent a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. We have examined the record and the findings of fact of the trial examiner and we conclude, as did the Board, that the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, and that the trial examiner correctly applied the law.

Woodmere’s petition for review is dismissed. The Board’s petition for enforcement is granted.

Woodmere, Inc., and Cross-Appellant v. National Labor Relations Board, And, 432 F.2d 559, 75 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2351, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7210 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

432 F.2d 559 (Woodmere, Inc., and Cross-Appellant v. National Labor Relations Board, And) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related