NLRB v. SUN HARDWARE COMPANY
Decision Date | 11 March 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 24723.,24723. |
Citation | 422 F.2d 1296 |
Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SUN HARDWARE COMPANY, Inc., Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Ronald Greenberg (argued), Atty., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., Ralph E. Kennedy, Director, N.L.R.B., Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Wilson Clark (argued), of Brundage & Hackler, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Before BARNES and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE,* District Judge.
Petitioner, the National Labor Relations Board (Board), seeks enforcement of its decision and order of November 26, 1968 against respondent, Sun Hardware Company, Inc., (Sun), which was found to have engaged in unfair labor practices as defined in section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. (29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), (3)) The Board adopted the findings and conclusions of the trial examiner with slight modifications (C.T. 33), and pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act ordered the enforcement of the recommended order. Our jurisdiction to enforce the order rests upon § 10(e) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 160(e)), the alleged unfair labor practice having occurred in Long Beach, California.
We are called upon to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record, viewed in its entirety, to support the decision and order recommended by the trial examiner and adopted by the Board. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488, 71 S. Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); NLRB v. Miller Redwood Co., 407 F.2d 1366, 1369 (9th Cir. 1969). As we stated more specifically in Miller (supra at 1369):
The facts surrounding the timing of the layoff and rehiring of the respondent's employees (both those in favor of and those opposed to unionization) is not in dispute. Nor is there any doubt as to the business intentions of the respondent on January 2, 1968, to require its employees to work the following two Saturdays in addition to the regular forty hour work week. We think these facts, when viewed in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holo-Krome Co. v. N.L.R.B.
...serve as evidence for a finding of unlawful anti-union animus. See Sun Hardware Co., 173 NLRB 973 n. 1 (1968), enf'd, 422 F.2d 1296 (9th Cir.1970) (per curiam); General Battery Corp., 241 NLRB 1166, 1169 (1979). In this case, a majority of the Board's three-member panel concluded that the C......
-
Park v. El Paso Bd. of Realtors
... ... Id. at 1480. With respect to the other company, there was testimony that one of its salespeople disparaged Action to a homeowner, telling the ... ...