National Labor Relations Board v. Better Monkey Grip Company, 16278.
| Decision Date | 29 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 16278.,16278. |
| Citation | 243 F.2d 836 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. BETTER MONKEY GRIP COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
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.
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.
1 Substantially to the effect that respondent, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or attempting to induce any witness to change his testimony in any proceeding before the National Labor Relations Board or from discharging or in any other manner discriminating against any witness with respect to his hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because he has given testimony under the Act;
(b) In any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vokas Provision Co. v. N.L.R.B., s. 84-5886
...1107, 1108 (1977), enforcement denied, 600 F.2d 930 (D.C.Cir.1979); Better Monkey Grip Company, 115 N.L.R.B. 1170, enforced, 243 F.2d 836 (5th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 864, 78 S.Ct. 96, 2 L.Ed.2d 69 (1957).11 The most recent case in the Sixth Circuit to uphold the right of an emplo......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Oakes Mach. Corp., Subsidiary of Katy Industries, Inc.
...(1956), on remand from Pedersen v. NLRB, 234 F.2d 417 (2d Cir.1956); Better Monkey Grip Co., 115 N.L.R.B. 1170, 1171 (1956), enf'd, 243 F.2d 836 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 864, 78 S.Ct. 96, 2 L.Ed.2d 69 (1957). In this appeal, Oakes Machine asserts that the protection of the NLRA do......
-
NLRB v. Southland Paint Company
...process, in violation of section 8(a) (1), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1)". See NLRB v. Better Monkey Grip Co., 115 N.L.R.B. 1170, enfd., 243 F.2d 836 (5 Cir. 1957), cert. den., 355 U.S. 864, 78 S.Ct. 96, 2 L.Ed.2d 69 (1957); NLRB v. Dal-Tex Optical Co., 310 F.2d 58 (5 Cir. 1962). The giving of an ......
-
M. B. Zaninovich, Inc. v. Agrigultural Labor Relations Bd.
...must be deemed a protected employee activity within the Act (cf. Better Monkey Grip Company (1956) 115 NLRB 1170, enforced (5th Cir. 1957) 243 F.2d 836, cert. den. 355 U.S. 864, 78 S.Ct. 96, 2 L.Ed.2d 69; see also N. L. R. B. v. Southland Paint Company (5th Cir. 1968) 394 F.2d 717; Vogue Li......