TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. B. F. Diamond Construction Company, Inc., and Diamond Manufacturing Company, Inc.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. B. F. DIAMOND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., and Diamond Manufacturing Company, Inc., Respondents

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. B. F. Diamond Constr. Co., 410 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 4, 1969
Docket
No. 25471_1
Judges
Brown, John, Per Curiam, Taylor, Thornberry
Citations
410 F.2d 462

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This is another of the frequent cases in which the Board petitions for enforcement of its bargaining order, entered after finding that the Employer violated § 8(a) (5), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (a) (5). As with so many, it illustrates again that the supposed speed of administrative proceedings may be very questionable.

1

We conclude without difficulty that the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. We therefore enforce.

Briefly, the Board found that the Company (1) did not satisfy the statutory obligation to meet at reasonable times with the Union, (2) failed to furnish information necessary and relevant to bargaining, and (3) in other ways failed to negotiate in good faith with the Union, in violation of section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. Since one such violation is enough to trigger the § 8(a) (5) order, no particularly useful purpose would be served by detailing the evidence *463 upon which the Trial Examiner and Board based their findings and conclusions. It is sufficient to say that, as usual, there was a certain amount of conflicting testimony which required credibility resolutions — a function peculiarly within the province of the Trial Examiner and the Board.

See, e. g., NLRB v. May Aluminum, Inc., 5 Cir., 1968, 398 F.2d 47, 51 ; NLRB v. Tidelands Marine Serv., Inc., 5 Cir., 1964, 338 F.2d 44, 47 ; Martin Sprocket & Gear Co. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 1964, 329 F.2d 417, 420 .

On our thorough examination of the record in the light of applicable standards, we conclude that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board’s finding that the company failed to bargain with the Union in good faith, in violation of § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. See Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 1950, 340 U.S. 474 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 . That is the end of it. At long last the end is declared.

Enforced.

1

. The Board’s decision and order of February 28, 1967, are reported at 163 NLRB No. 25 . The Union was certified on July 1, 1965. Thus nearly four years have gone by — presumably with neither contract nor bargaining since April 28, 1966.

How later courts describe this case

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

1974: 31979: 119742026peak 1974 · 3

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474 (1951) 7,362
Martin Sprocket & Gear Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 329 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1964) 18
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. May Aluminum, Inc., 398 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1968) 9
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tidelands Marine Serv., Inc., 338 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1964) 4

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