NLRB v. Toffenetti Restaurant Company

Decision Date28 November 1962
Docket NumberNo. 134,Docket 27674.,134
Citation311 F.2d 219
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. TOFFENETTI RESTAURANT COMPANY, Inc., Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

James McC. Harkless, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Melvin J. Welles, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Pauline Teitelbaum, of Teitelbaum & Teitelbaum, New York City (Morris Teitelbaum, New York City, on the brief), for respondent.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and CLARK and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board found that Toffenetti Restaurant Company, Inc., violated the National Labor Relations Act, § 8(a) (1, 3), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1, 3), by discontinuing bonus payments to those of its employees who were represented by the union, by disqualifying union members from participation in its profit-sharing plan, and by liquidating the interests of union-represented employees in the profit-sharing plan in a discriminatory manner. The Board also found that respondent violated § 8(1, 5), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1, 5), by unilateral effectuation of these discriminatory policies and by refusing to furnish the union, upon its request, with a copy of the profit-sharing plan and its amendment. 136 NLRB No. 106. These findings are amply supported by the record.

The petition for enforcement is granted and the Board's order will be enforced in full.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • NLRB v. Wonder State Manufacturing Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • April 20, 1965
    ...501 (5 Cir. 1964); N. L. R. B. v. United States Air Conditioning Corporation, 336 F.2d 275 (6 Cir. 1964); N. L. R. B. v. Toffenetti Restaurant Company, 311 F.2d 219 (2 Cir. 1962); National Labor Relations Board v. Wheeling Pipe Line, 229 F.2d 391 (8 Cir. 1956). The Board adopted the examine......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT