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
Tupperware Company, a Division of Dart Industries, Inc., Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 477 F.2d 126
April 17, 1973
Newell N. Fowler and Arnold E. Perl, Fowler, Young & Perl, Memphis, Tenn.; Jack G. Hall, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., John J. A. Reynolds, Jr., Director, Region 26 N. L. R. B., Memphis, Tenn., for respondent.
Before WEICK, MILLER and KENT, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This case is before this Court upon the petition of Tupperware Company for review of an order entered by the National Labor Relations Board finding it guilty of violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, by discharging its employee Wade Richardson because of his union activities.
The Board requests the court to deny the petition for review and to enter an order of enforcement of its order. The sole question before the court is whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the finding of the Board that the employee was discharged because of his union activities. Having fully examined the record, we are of the opinion that the Board's order is supported by substantial evidence.
The petition of the company for review will therefore be denied and the Board's order against the company finding it guilty of violating the Act will be enforced.