NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
GOULD, INC., 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 Gould did not commit unfair labor practices by writing to TDES or by refusing to recall employees due to union activity.
The NLRB found Gould committed unfair labor practices by requesting employee earnings records from TDES and by refusing to recall seven employees due …
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 National Labor Relations Act § 8(A)(3) cases and more on FLexlaw
Before CELEBREZZE and MERRITT, Circuit Judges and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petitioner, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), seeks enforcement of its order finding Respondent, Gould, Inc. (Gould), to have committed unfair labor practices and Respondent cross-petitions for review and to have the order set aside. The NLRB found Gould to have violated § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by writing a letter to the Tennessee Department of Employment Security (TDES) requesting TDES to check the earnings records of certain Gould employees who had been laid off. The NLRB found Gould to have violated § 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to recall from layoff seven employees allegedly because of their union activities and support.
This Court is of the opinion that Gould did not violate § 8(a)(1) of the Act by writing the letter in question to TDES. The letter had the legitimate business purpose of preventing unnecessary depletion of Gould’s unemployment fund with the State. There is not substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole to support the NLRB’s finding that the letter constituted a violation of § 8(a)(1).
This Court is further of the opinion that the refusal to recall from layoff the seven employees in question did not constitute a violation of § 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. There is not substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole that these refusals to recall were based upon these employees’ union activities and support.
The petition of the NLRB for enforcement is denied. The cross-petition for review and to set aside the NLRB order is granted.
It is so ordered.