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
HOOVER DESIGN CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. - 402 F.2d 987
Nov. 7, 1968
Wayne Taylor, Nashville, Tenn., for petitioner, Butler, Binkley, McHugh, Butler & Tune, John C. Tune, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., on brief.
Nancy M. Sherman, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, on brief.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, COMBS, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Hoover Design Corporation, petitioner, seeks a review of and a vacation of a final order of the National Labor Relations Board. (Section 160(f), Title 29, U.S.C.) The Board has filed an answer requesting enforcement of its order. The Board's Decision and Order are reported at 167 NLRB No. 62.
The Board found that the petitioner violated Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Labor Management Relations Act by discharging employee Roscoe Vogt. The basis of the Board's findings was that Vogt was discharged because he engaged in concerted activity (8(a)(1)) for the benefit of employees concerning Thanksgiving holiday compensation and because he threatened to go to the Board with his grievance (8(a)(4)).
Upon consideration of the record, the briefs and oral arguments of counsel, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the 8(a)(1) violation.
Section 8(a)(4), (Sec. 158(4), Title 29, U.S.C.) provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice 'to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under this subchapter; * * *' We conclude as a matter of law that threatening to go to the Board or threatening to file charges with the Board does not constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(4). See NLRB v. Ritchie Mfg. Co., 354 F.,2d 90 (C.A. 8). No cases have been cited to us nor have we found any that would support such a violation.
The order of the Board will be enforced with the exception of modifications 1(c) and 4 of the Trial Examiner's recommended order.