HUBERTA COAL COMPANY, INC., AND HUBERTA MINING COMPANY, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that the company violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act by resisting unionization and aiding an independent union.
Huberta Coal Company and Huberta Mining Company were found by the National Labor Relations Board to have violated the NLRA. The violations stemmed fro…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
This Cause is before us upon petition of Huberta Coal Company, Inc. and Huberta Mining Company, Inc. to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board which found them guilty of violating Sections 8(a) (1) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1) and (2). The Board’s Decision and Order, with the accompanying Trial Examiner’s Decision are reported at 168 NLRB No. 22.1
The conduct found to be violative of the Act was the company’s resistance to efforts of the United Mine Workers to organize petitioners’ employees, and its aid and espousal of a so-called independent union. Neither in its facts nor in the applicable law is this a case of precedential importance. The facts are adequately set out in the Trial Examiner’s Decision and in the Board’s Decision and Order. We are of the opinion that the factual findings of the Board are “supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole,” and the law was correctly applied.
Now, therefore, it is ordered that the petition for review is denied and the order of the Board may be, and is, hereby enforced.
Entered by order of the Court.
. Included in the Board’s order was the direction that a specified election be set aside and a second election held. There appears to be no dispute but that such part of the order is not before us for consideration. See Morse Instrument Co. v. NLRB, 388 F. 2d 1, 2 (6th Cir. 1967) ; Jervis Corporation, Bolivar Division v. NLRB, 387 F. 2d 107, 108 (6th Cir. 1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jervis Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 387 F.2d 107 (6th Cir. 1967)
- The Morse Instrument Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 388 F.2d 1 (6th Cir. 1967)