National Labor Relations Board v. Rawac Plating Company
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. RAWAC PLATING COMPANY, Respondent
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order, reported at 172 N.L.R.B. No. 180 (Aug. 20, 1968), finding respondent Rawac Plating Company in violation of §§ 8(a) (3) and 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158 (a) (3), 158(a) (1). The Board found that the company discharged six of its employees because of their union sympathies and coercively interrogated its employees about union activities. Respondent denies that there was coercive interrogation and claims that there were valid business reasons for the discharges, and that it was just coincidence that they occurred during a union organizing campaign. It is, of course, the Board’s function and not ours to resolve questions of fact and credibility when there is conflict in the testimony. If there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings, they must be accepted by this court. National Labor Relations Act, § 10(e), 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e); Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); N. L. R. B. v. Challenge-Cook Bros. of Ohio, Inc., 374 F.2d 147, 152 (6th Cir. 1967). Our examination of the record discloses substantial evidence to support the findings of the Board.
Respondent asks us to deny enforcement because the Board’s Trial Examiner refused to grant the company a second continuance after its president had suffered a heart attack. It appears from the record that respondent was not prejudiced by this denial. Respondent’s attorney made a proffer of evidence which the company’s president could *1261 have supplied on regaining his health, but all of this proffered testimony concerned his conversations with other officers and supervisory personnel, to which the latter were competent and able to testify. Under these circumstances the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion.
See, e. g., N. L. R. B. v. Dal-Tex Optical Co., 310 F.2d 58, 62 (5th Cir. 1962); Lloyd Fry Roofing Co. v. NLRB, 222 F.2d 938, 940 (1st Cir., 1955).
The order of the Board is enforced.
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. Baja's Place
- National Labor Relations Board v. Downslope Industries, Inc., and Greenbrier Industries, Inc.
- National Labor Relations Board v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18, Afl-Cio
- National Labor Relations Board v. Local 212, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (Uaw)
- Itt Lighting Fixtures, Division of Itt Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
- National Labor Relations Board v. Franklin Property Company, Inc., D/B/A the Hilton Inn
Most recent
- National Labor Relations Board v. Benmit Division, United States Tubular, Inc.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Baja's Place
- Itt Lighting Fixtures, Division of Itt Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
- National Labor Relations Board v. Local 212, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (Uaw)
- National Labor Relations Board v. Downslope Industries, Inc., and Greenbrier Industries, Inc.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Franklin Property Company, Inc., D/B/A the Hilton Inn
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.