188 F.2d 362 (3rd Cir. 1951), 10317, Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
| Citation | 188 F.2d 362 |
| Date | 25 April 1951 |
| Parties | STANDARD DRY WALL PRODUCTS, Inc., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | 10317. |
Page 362
Argued April 3, 1951.
On petition for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board.
Thomas E. Whiteen, Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.
Robert G. Johnson, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Assistant General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost and Ruth V. Russell, all of Washington, D.C., on the brief), Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MARRIS and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., insists that there is not sufficient evidence on 'the whole record' as that phrase is used in the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 237, as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq. and the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
Page 363
61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 71 S.Ct. 456, and National Labor Relations Board v. Pittsburgh Steamship Company, 71 S.Ct. 453, to support the Board's findings that the petitioner violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended 61 Stat. 140, 29 U.S.C.A. 158(a)(1) and (3). We conclude that the evidence supporting the Board's decision is substantial when viewed in the light furnished by the record in its entirety, including the body of evidence opposed to the Board's view. We are also of the opinion that the decision of the Board is reasonable and fair.
We will enforce the Board's order. A decree may be submitted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Representation-Case Procedures
...76 FR 811059. The standard referred to, as in the unfair labor counterpart case of Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951), is limited to contested credibility findings. Otherwise, the de novo review standard applies. Id. at My colleagues assert tha......
-
FES (A Division of Thermo Power), (2000)
...preponder-ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. The Respondent correctly asserts that the ......
-
Nova Southeastern University, (2011)
...preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stand-ard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. We shall modify the judge’s recommended Or......
-
MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY AND ITS SUBSIDIARY, SPARTAN MINING COMPANY D/B/A MAMMOTH COAL COMPANY, (2012)
...preponde r-ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 5 44 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. In addition, some of Mammoth’s exception......
-
FES (A Division of Thermo Power), (2000)
...preponder-ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. The Respondent correctly asserts that the ......
-
Nova Southeastern University, (2011)
...preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stand-ard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. We shall modify the judge’s recommended Or......
-
MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY AND ITS SUBSIDIARY, SPARTAN MINING COMPANY D/B/A MAMMOTH COAL COMPANY, (2012)
...preponde r-ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 5 44 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. In addition, some of Mammoth’s exception......
-
Double D Construction Group, (2003)
.... . [W]e do not deem our-selves bound by the Trial Examiner’s findings.” Stan-dard Dry Wall Products, Inc,. 91 NLRB 544, 545 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). Since a de novo re-view of the record in this case fully supports the judge’s finding that the General Counsel failed to sa......
-
Labor and Employment Mid-Year Update for 2020
...preponderance of all the relevant evidenc e convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 195 1). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis fo r reversing the findings. The judge found, and we agree, that the......
-
Representation-Case Procedures
...76 FR 811059. The standard referred to, as in the unfair labor counterpart case of Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951), is limited to contested credibility findings. Otherwise, the de novo review standard applies. Id. at My colleagues assert tha......