TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. Fischbach Trucking Company

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. FISCHBACH TRUCKING COMPANY, Respondent

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fischbach Trucking Co., 398 F.2d 352 (6th Cir. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 12, 1968
Docket
No. 17961
Judges
O'Sullivan, McCree, Cecil
Citations
398 F.2d 35268 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 30241968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6129

Opinion

ORDER This matter involves enforcement of an order of the NLRB which found respondent, Fischbach Trucking Company, guilty of violating Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the NLRA. The Board’s order, which affirmed the hearing examiner, is reported at 159 NLRB 108 . The facts are adequately reported in the decision of the hearing examiner and the order of the Board.

The respondent does not contest the finding that by reason of interrogations during an organization campaign an 8(a) (1) violation occurred. The 8(a) (3) violation is the consequence of the discharge of one Robert McCall, Jr., allegedly for union activities. The trial examiner, affirmed by the Board, credited all witnesses appearing for the union and discredited all witnesses appearing for the company. We cannot say, however, that his factual conclusions are without support on the record, considered as a whole.

We, therefore, affirm the order of the Board.

Entered by order of the Court.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1969: 21974: 119692026peak 1969 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shell Chemical Company, a Division of Shell Oil Company v. National Labor Relations Board495 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir. 1974)
  2. Clark's Gamble Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board407 F.2d 199 (6th Cir. 1969)
  3. No. 18354407 F.2d 199 (6th Cir. 1969)

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