National Labor Relations Board v. Chas. S. Wood & Co.
| Decision Date | 18 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 13897.,13897. |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CHAS. S. WOOD & CO., Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
William J. Avrutis, Washington, D. C. (Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Janet Kohn, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, on the brief), for petitioner.
Before STALEY and FORMAN, Circuit Judges, and LANE, District Judge.
The only question presented by this petition for enforcement is whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the National Labor Relations Board that respondent refused to bargain in good faith with the exclusive representative of its employees.
In essence, respondent challenges the trial examiner's resolution of issues of credibility and the inferences he drew from the evidence presented. We have repeatedly stated that such factual determinations are the function of the Board and will not be disturbed unless not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. National Labor Relations Board v. Buitoni Foods Corp., 298 F.2d 169 (C.A.3, 1962); National Labor Relations Board v. Lewisburg Chair & Furniture Co., 230 F.2d 155 (C.A.3, 1956). Of course, this is in accord with the Supreme Court's direction in Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951).
A consideration of the entire record in this case convinces us that the findings of the Board are amply supported by the evidence.
The petition for enforcement will, therefore, be granted, and a form of decree may be submitted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Royal Plating & Polishing Co.
...474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 492, 495 (3 Cir. 1964); NLRB v. Chas. S. Wood & Co., 309 F.2d 140 (3 Cir. 1962). The Company also argues that the employees were put on notice that there would be some change in operations because it w......
-
Philadelphia Marine Trade Association v. NLRB
...not be disturbed by this court unless not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. National Labor Relations Board v. Chas. S. Wood & Co., 309 F.2d 140 (C.A.3, 1962); National Labor Relations Board v. Buitoni Foods Corp., 298 F.2d 169 (C.A.3, 1962); Quaker State Oil Refini......