TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. Clearwater Finishing Company

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CLEARWATER FINISHING COMPANY, Respondent

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Clearwater Finishing Co., 216 F.2d 608 (4th Cir. 1954)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 8, 1954
Docket
No. 6861
Judges
Parker, Soper, Dobie
Citations
216 F.2d 60835 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 20691954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3848

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for the enforcement of an- order of the National Labor Relations Board which found that the Clearwater Finishing Company had been guilty of certain unfair labor practices and directed it to cease and desist therefrom and to restore' with back pay three employees found to have been discriminatorily discharged. Enforcement is resisted on the ground that the Board’s findings and order are not sustained by substantial evidence on the whole record. The facts are sufficiently set forth in the Board’s order and the report of the trial examiner and need not be repeated here.- We think that the findings and order are, sustained by substantial evidence on. the whole record except with respect to 'David Timmerman and in that respect we think that it is not so sustained. Timmerman was discharged as the result of an altercation with another employee. That the altercation may. have-arisen because of Tim-merman’s advocacy pf the union does not sustain the position of the Board, since the employer was within its rights in 'forbidding union advocacy during working hours. Who was to' blame in the altercation is, likewise, beside the point, as the employer had the right to discharge Timmerman because of the altercation whether he was to blame or not, so long as this was the real ground of the discharge and not a mere pretext. The evidence gives no substantial support-to the finding that the discharge, which occurred several months after the other discharges found to be discriminatory, was on account of Timmerman’s union membership, and we think that the conclusion to that effect must be condemned as speculative.

The findings and order of the Board will accordingly be modified by eliminat *609 ing therefrom the findings with respect to Timmerman and the order for his reinstatement; and as so modified it will be enforced.

Modified and enforced.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1958: 11969: 119582026peak 1958 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list