Dollar General Corporation v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 73-1784.

Decision Date05 April 1974
Docket NumberNo. 73-1784.,73-1784.
Citation493 F.2d 1230
PartiesDOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

D. L. Lansden, Ames Davis, Nashville, Tenn., on brief, for petitioner.

Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Jay E. Shanklin, Peter M. Bernstein, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on brief, for respondent.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, MILLER, Circuit Judge, and Mc-ALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.

This is a petition for review by Dollar General Corporation, of Scottsville, Kentucky, and a cross-petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board, finding the company guilty of violating Sec. 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act in discharging employees Billingsley, Hurt, and Isenberg. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge to the effect that these employees were discharged because of antiunion motives on the part of the company and because of the employees' union activities. 204 NLRB No. 106.

In two prior cases, the Board found that the company had committed unfair labor practices at the Scottsville location. 189 NLRB 301.

In September 1969, three months after the last discharge for union activities, the company drivers began to discuss union organization. The company responded by interrogating them about these meetings, and warning them they would be fired if they did not stop their organizational activities. Shortly after the three drivers were discharged, the Board found that the discharge of the three employees violated Sec. 8(a) (1) of the Act by coercing the employees in their statutory right to self organization, and violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by discriminating in employment in order to discourage membership in a labor organization.

The Board entered a cease and desist order, and further ordered the company to offer the three employees immediate and full reinstatement in their former or substantially equivalent positions, and to make them whole for any loss of earnings resulting from the discrimination and to post the usual notices.

On an examination of the record, we find the order of the Board supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The order of the National Labor Relations Board is,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Davis v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • March 25, 1976
    ...precepts has been the conclusion of recent decisions. See Eldridge v. Weinberger, 361 F.Supp. 520, 524 (W.D.Va.1973), aff'd 493 F.2d 1230 (4th Cir. 1974), rev'd, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 44 U.S.L.W. 4224 (1976); Williams v. Weinberger, 360 F.Supp. 1349 (N.D.Ga. 1973), aff'......
  • Mathews v. Eldridge
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1976
    ...subsequent judicial review before the denial of his claim becomes final, there is no deprivation of procedural due process. Pp. 347-349. 493 F.2d 1230, Donald E. Earls, Norton, Va., for respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue in this case is whether the ......
  • Mattern v. Weinberger
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • June 3, 1975
    ... ... Local Board No. 2, Hartford, Connecticut, 297 F.Supp. 252, ... New York State Dept. of Labor, 321 F.Supp. 432 (S.D.N.Y.1971), vacated and ... § 404.508, which provides: ... (a) General. "Defeat the purpose of title II (42 U.S.C. § ... ...
  • Saurino v. Weinberger, Civ. A. No. 74-140.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • June 3, 1975
    ...a pretermination hearing. See, Goldberg v. Kelly, supra; Eldridge v. Weinberger, 361 F. Supp. 520, 523-524 (W.D.Va.1973) aff'd, 493 F.2d 1230 (4th Cir. 1974) cert. granted, 419 U.S. 1104, 95 S.Ct. 773, 42 L.Ed.2d 800 (1975). In addition, had the plaintiffs been certified as eligible for the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT