Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Better Monkey Grip Company, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 243 F.2d 836
May 1, 1957 Rehearing Denied May 29, 1957
Owsley Vose, Stephen Leonard, Washington, D. C., Theophil C. Kammholz, General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel, Ruth V. Reel, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Herbert S. Bonney, Jr., William L. Keller, Dallas, Tex., for respondent.
Before BORAH, RIVES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to Sec. 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.), seeks enforcement of its order.1 The respondent insists: (1) that the Board's factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence; (2) that the Court should remand the proceedings for the purpose of adducing additional testimony; and (3) that the Board's conclusion that respondent's conduct violated Sec. 8(a) (1) of the Act was improper.
For reasons sufficiently appearing in the Board's decision, we are of opinion that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports its finding that respondent discharged supervisor Robert L. Whaley because he gave testimony adverse to its interests in a prior Board proceeding, and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the respondent's motion that the case be remanded for the purpose of taking additional evidence. We further hold that, under the evidence in the record, the Board was warranted in concluding that the discharge of a supervisor for testifying under the Act interfered with, restrained and coerced nonsupervisory employees in violation of Sec. 8(a) (1) [See N. L. R. B. v. Talladega Cotton Factory, Inc., 5 Cir., 213 F.2d 209, 215-217, 40 A.L.R.2d 404], and that a contrary conclusion is not required by Section 8(a) (4) of the Act. Compare Pedersen v. N. L. R. B., 2d Cir., 234 F.2d 417.
The order is therefore
Enforced.