NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. Waycross Sportswear, Inc., 24719.
| Decision Date | 14 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24719.,24719. |
| Citation | 391 F.2d 294 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. WAYCROSS SPORTSWEAR, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Elliott Moore, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Paul J. Spielberg, Gregory L. Hellrung, Attys., N. L. R. B., for petitioner.
E. Kontz Bennett, Waycross, Ga., for respondent; Bennett, Pedrick & Bennett, Waycross, Ga., of counsel.
Before WISDOM, BELL and DYER, Circuit Judges.
During an organizational campaign by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers among the employees of Waycross Sportswear Company, the Company took certain actions which became the basis for section 8(a) (1) and (3)1 charges before the Board. The Board adopted the findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner to the effect that section 8(a) (1) had been violated by interrogation of and attempts to influence employees, and that section 8(a) (3) had been violated in the discharge of employee Cowart because he had engaged in union activities.
The findings on the section 8(a) (1) charges are fully supported by the evidence. The evidence concerning the section 8(a) (3) charge is conflicting and the Board's decision rested on credibility choices. Being bound by these credibility determinations, Nabors v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir. 1963, 323 F.2d 686, 692, we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Board's finding that Cowart was discharged in violation of section 8(a) (3).
Enforced.
1 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1), (3).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Miller Redwood Company
...before us, we are not so omniscient as to declare this decision to be unsupported by substantial evidence. NLRB v. Waycross Sportswear, Inc., 391 F.2d 294 (5th Cir. 1968); Nabors v. NLRB, 323 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. In the case at bar the Board properly concluded that the evidence established pr......
-
NLRB v. American Art Industries, Inc.
...1963, 323 F.2d 686, accord N. L. R. B. v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co., 5 Cir., 1968, 392 F.2d 559, 560-561; N. L. R. B. v. Waycross Sportswear, Inc., 5 Cir., 1968, 391 F.2d 294. The Company relies heavily on inconsistencies in the testimony of the Board's witnesses on cross-examination by the......
-
Waycross Sportswear, Inc. v. NLRB
...credited findings of illegal 8 (a) (1) discrimination accompanied by discriminatory 8(a) (3) discharges. N. L.R.B. v. Waycross Sportswear, Inc., 5 Cir (March 14, 1968) 391 F.2d 294.3 No sooner had the opposition to the union's campaign ended unsuccessfully in certification of the Union4 tha......
-
NLRB v. Holly Bra of California, Inc.
...before us, we are not so omniscient as to declare this decision to be unsupported by substantial evidence. N LRB v. Waycross Sportswear, Inc., 391 F. 2d 294 (5th Cir. 1968); Nabors v. NLRB, 323 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1963). The Board's order is, therefore, * Hon. Charles H. Carr, United States ......