NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
BOOT-STER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT

6th Cir. | 1969-01-21
No. 18440
Before McCREE and COMBS, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
405 F.2d 1210 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1969) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the Board's order finding violations of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act was supported by substantial evidence and granted enforcement.


Facts & Procedural History

The Board found that Boot-Ster Manufacturing Company interrogated an employee about union sympathies, warned him against union activities, and subsequ…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In this action the Board requests enforcement of an order based on findings that Boot-Ster Manufacturing Company violated Sections 8(a) (1), 8(a) (3), and 8(a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board’s findings and order are reported at 165 N.L.R.B. No. 47. The Board is not seeking enforcement of the bargaining provisions of the order because the union subsequently advised the regional director that it no longer wishes to represent the company’s employees.

In N.L.R.B. v. Boot-Ster Manufacturing Company, 361 F. 2d 325 (1966), this Court granted enforcement of a Board order based on findings of Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (5) violations.

The order as it now stands stems from the Board’s finding that employee Lewis was interrogated about his union sympathies and warned not to persist in his union activities. Shortly afterwards, he was discharged and the Board found that the discharge was motivated by Lewis’s union activity.

Upon consideration, we are of the opinion that, while this Court might have reached a contrary result if it were authorized to make de novo findings, the Board’s order is supported by substantial evidence. N.L.R.B. v. Interurban Gas Corp., 317 F. 2d 724 (6th Cir. 1963).

Accordingly, enforcement of the Board’s order with respect to Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) violations is granted.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw