NLRB v. FANT MILLING COMPANY
| Decision Date | 15 December 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 16953.,16953. |
| Citation | 272 F.2d 773 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. FANT MILLING COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Atty., Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Maurice Alexandre, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
C. H. Gillespie, Jr., Sherman, Tex., O. B. Fisher, J. D. McLaughlin, Paris, Tex., Gillespie & Gillespie, Sherman, Tex., Fisher, McLaughlin & Harrison, Paris, Tex., for respondent.
Before JONES, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
This case is back after reversal by the Supreme Court, 1959, 360 U.S. 301, 79 S.Ct. 1179, 1184, 3 L.Ed.2d 1243, of our former opinion, 5 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 851, for consideration in the light of footnote 10 which remanded it to us for further action.1 Judge Rives' factual summary covered three matters occurring within the six months of the § 10 (b) charge and two items occurring thereafter. 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(b). These two subsequent items were (1) the employer's wage increase of October 7, 1954, and (2) the employer's withdrawal on November 19, 1954 of recognition of the union on the ground that the union no longer represented the majority of its employees.2
As our study of the record pursuant to the mandate convinces us that there was substantial evidence on the record as a whole in support of at least one of these two subsequent items, neither of which was previously assayed by the majority on the prior hearing because of the holding on § 10(b), we find it unnecessary to reconsider those matters occurring within the six-month period. In accordance with the mandate, it follows that the Board's order should be enforced.
Enforced.
1 Footnote 10 was appended to the last word of the opinion and read:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc.
...1960, 275 F.2d 229, 231, quoting NLRB v. Fant Milling Co., 360 U.S. 301, 309 n. 10, 79 S.Ct. 1179, 3 L.Ed.2d 1243, enf'd on remand, 5 Cir., 1959, 272 F.2d 773. But our review is not perfunctory, for "we must make certain that the record actually and substantially supports the charge." Herma......
-
NLRB v. Downs-Clark, Inc.
...N.L.R.B. v. Fant Milling Co., 360 U.S. 301, 309 n. 10, 79 S.Ct. 1179, 1184, 3 L.Ed.2d 1243, 1249 (1959), enforced on remand, 5 Cir., 1959, 272 F.2d 773; N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 5 Cir., 1966, 365 F.2d 321, 323; Oil City Brass Works v. N.L.R.B., 5 Cir., 1966, 357 F.2d 466, 4......
-
Chevron Oil Co., Standard Oil Co. of Tex. Div. v. NLRB
...N.L.R.B. v. Fant Milling Co., 360 U.S. 301, 309, note 10, 79 S.Ct. 1179, 1184, 3 L.Ed.2d 1243, 1249 (1959), enforced on remand, 5th Cir. 1959, 272 F.2d 773; N.L.R.B. v. Herman Sausage Co., 5th Cir. 1960, 275 F.2d 229, 231. We therefore carefully examine the evidence, mindful that the Board ......
-
NLRB v. Herman Sausage Co.
...N. L. R. B. v. Fant Milling Co., 1959, 360 U.S. 301, 309, note 10, 79 S.Ct. 1179, 1184, 3 L.Ed.2d 1243, 1249, enforced on remand, 5 Cir., 1959, 272 F.2d 773. Probably in few other instances is the task of judging so difficult. Of this we have remarked before that "there is a duty on both si......