Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Textile Workers Union of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided October 13, 1971No. 14530_1Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partButzner, Circuit Judge

I agree that the Board’s refusal to order the reinstatement of Betty S. Allen is supported by substantial evidence.

I dissent from the denial of enforcement of the Board’s order. The Board’s finding that J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., violated § 8(a) (1) of the Act by making coercive statements is based on the *599following summary of its superintendents’ speeches to employees:

“[T]hat a situation could arise in which it would be necessary to produce signed cards in a public courtroom and the corresponding signing employees could be required to testify, and, by way of illustration, the superintendents…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. National Labor Relations Board v. Gissel Packing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. National Labor Relations Board v. Link-Belt Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. National Labor Relations Board v. Stowe Spinning Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  4. Corrie Corporation of Charleston v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1967
  5. Winchester Spinning Corporation v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1968

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API