National Labor Relations Board v. Fant Milling Company
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. FANT MILLING COMPANY, Respondent
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
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 *774 (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 road:
“10. The Board urges that we instruct the Court of Appeals to enforce the Board’s order. We decline to do so. Cf. National Labor Relations Board v. Pittsburgh S.S. Co., 340 U.S. 498 , 71 S.Ct. 453 , 95 L.Ed. 479 . However, we think it appropriate to state that if the factual summary contained in Judge Rives’ dissenting opinion finds support in the record as a whole, the Board’s order should be enforced ‘even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.’ Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 488 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 . 467.”
2
. These are summarized in Judge Rives’ dissenting opinion, 5 Cir., 258 F.2d 851 , 859 at page 860 and detailed in bis note No. 1.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- National Labor Relations Board v. Herman Sausage Co., Inc.
- Chevron Oil Company, Standard Oil Company of Texas Division -Cross v. National Labor Relations Board -Cross
- National Labor Relations Board v. Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc., and Randle Medical Sales and Rentals, Inc.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Minute Maid Corporation
- National Labor Relations Board v. Bonham Cotton Mills, Inc.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Company
Most recent
- National Labor Relations Board v. Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc., and Randle Medical Sales and Rentals, Inc.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Downs-Clark, Inc.
- Chevron Oil Company, Standard Oil Company of Texas Division -Cross v. National Labor Relations Board -Cross
- National Labor Relations Board v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Company
- National Labor Relations Board v. Bonham Cotton Mills, Inc.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Minute Maid Corporation
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.