NLRB v. Brennan's, Inc.
Decision Date | 21 November 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 22168.,22168. |
Citation | 368 F.2d 1004 |
Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. BRENNAN'S, INC., Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Harold Shire, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
C. Dale Stout, New Orleans, La., for respondent.
Before GEWIN and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and McRAE, District Judge.
ON PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF OPINION.
Upon petition for modification of our opinion the National Labor Relations Board does not seek a change in the result of our decision in this case. It is contended, however, that we have departed from the standard of review set forth in Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L. R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 478, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456; N.L.R.B. v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 405, 82 S.Ct. 853, 7 L.Ed.2d 829; and Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company v. N.L.R.B., 354 F.2d 707 (5 Cir. 1966) by use of the following language:
While we disagree with the above interpretation of our language, in the interest of clarity we withdraw it and substitute the following:
But in addition the record discloses other vital and important considerations in that LaFleur\'s abusive language gave rise to significant business reasons and a legitimate business purpose which strongly support the action of the Brennan\'s in removing LaFleur from the main dining room. Therefore we must decide whether the conduct of Brennan\'s in reference to LaFleur carries with it an inference of unlawful intention which is so compelling that it constitutes substantial evidence of an unlawful motive and justifies the conclusion that Brennan\'s was not motivated by legitimate business interests. See American Ship Building Co. v. N.L.R.B. 380 U.S. 300, 85 S.Ct. 955, 13 L.Ed.2d 855, 863-4 (1965). Upon a full review of the record we conclude that the above facts coupled with LaFleur\'s self-serving declaration that Brennan\'s was unlawfully motivated do not constitute substantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
N.L.R.B. v. Haberman Const. Co.
...See J. P. Stevens & Co. v. NLRB, 461 F.2d 490, 494 (4th Cir. 1972); NLRB v. Brennan's, Inc., 366 F.2d 560, 563-65, modified, 368 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir. 1966). However, both cases are distinguishable from the instant action because in neither case was there a collective bargaining agreement in ......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Haberman Const. Co.
...See J. P. Stevens & Co. v. NLRB, 461 F.2d 490, 494 (4th Cir. 1972); NLRB v. Brennan's, Inc., 366 F.2d 560, 563-65, modified, 368 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir. 1966). However, both cases are distinguishable from the instant action because in neither case was there a collective bargaining agreement in ......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Collier
...404, 808, 82 S.Ct. 853, 855, 7 L.Ed.2d 829, 832 (1962); NLRB v. Brennan's, Inc., 5 Cir., 366 F.2d 560, 562, 565, modified, 368 F.2d 1004, 1005 (5th Cir. 1966). Our difficulty here, however, is that having antiunion animus by itself does not violate section 8(a)(3). There must also be proof ......
-
Texaco Inc., Houston Producing Division v. NLRB
...853, 7 L.Ed.2d 829 (1962); Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 487-88, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); NLRB v. Brennan's, Inc., 368 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir. 1966); NLRB v. Brennan's, Inc., 366 F.2d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 1966); NLRB v. Central Okla. Milk Producers Ass'n., 285 F.2d 495, ......