TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. Tak Trak, Inc.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. TAK TRAK, INC., Respondent

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tak Trak, Inc., 293 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

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

Subsequent history: aff'd sub nom. Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 379 U.S. 203 (1964). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
August 1, 1961
Docket
No. 17194
Judges
Orr, Barnes, Hamley
Citations
293 F.2d 27048 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 28551961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3794

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter the Board) has petitioned this court for enforcement of its decree *271 directing respondent Tak Trak to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices and to reinstate twenty-three named employees.

Respondent Tak Trak discharged its entire work force shortly after a majority of the workers had signed cards authorizing representation by Painters District Council No. 36 and Its Affiliated Unions, AFL-CIO (hereinafter the union).

The Board found that respondent had violated § 8(a) (1), (3) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., because of its coercive management tactics, because of the mass discharge, and because of a failure to bargain collectively with the union.

The sole question for decision is whether or not the findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidence. A careful examination of the record convinces us that they are.

The petition of the Board for enforcement of its decree is granted.

How later courts describe this case

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

1964: 119642026peak 1964 · 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