TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wagoner Transportation Company v. National Labor Relations Board

WAGONER TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent

Wagoner Transp. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 424 F.2d 628 (6th Cir. 1970)
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
April 20, 1970
Docket
No. 19808
Judges
Weick, Peck, Brooks
Citations
424 F.2d 62874 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 20471970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9703

Opinion — Per Curiam

ORDER PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Wagoner Transportation Company, seeks to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board which the Board seeks to enforce. The order is reported at 177 N.L.R.B. No. 22.

The Board found that the Company discharged employees, Puckett and Burns because they participated in protected union activity in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. It also found that other employees were threatened by the Company in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.

The collective bargaining agreement contained a no-strike clause but provided that an employee could not be discharged for participating in an unauthorized work stoppage unless the strike continued for more than 24 hours. The Board found the wildcat strike in which Burns participated did not last for 24 hours and, therefore, he should not have been *629 discharged. This finding is supported by substantial evidence.

The Company bases its discharge of Puckett, who was a union steward, on his alleged taking of strike action in violation of the bargaining agreement. Puckett opposed the strike at all times and there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the Board on this issue.

There is also substantial evidence on the record as a whole supporting the Board’s finding that the Company did threaten its employees with discharge if they engaged in protected activities.

Enforcement of the order of the Board is granted.

How later courts describe this case

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

1974: 11994: 219742026peak 1994 · 2

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