TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. Spartus Corporation

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SPARTUS CORPORATION, Respondent

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Spartus Corp., 471 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1973)
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
January 9, 1973
Docket
No. 72-1768
Judges
Wisdom, Bell, Coleman
Citations
471 F.2d 29982 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 23831973 U.S. App. LEXIS 12245

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue before us is whether substantial evidence supports the findings of the National Labor Relations Board that Spartus Corporation, at its Louisville, Mississippi plant, violated § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by coercively interrogating and polling employees, by threatening them with reprisals, and by discriminating among them based upon their union sympathies. The Board decision and order are reported at 195 NLRB No. 17 .

We have the case on the Board’s petition to enforce and on the briefs of the parties, followed by oral argument.

We are of the opinion that substantial evidence supports the Board findings of § 8(a)(1) violations in the following respects, and no others:

1. A supervisor interrogated an employee about the identity of a union organizer and about the employee’s desires with reference to the union coming into the plant. Further, this supervisor told the employee that he knew she would vote right and if she did not there would be no bread on the table;

2. A supervisor interrogated an employee as to why she did not wear a “Vote No” button;

3. A supervisor coerced and intimidated employees by obviously avoiding inclusion of employees for holiday work if they wore union buttons, even though this tactic was soon abandoned;

4. A supervisor told an employee to go around and ask employees how they were going - to vote in the NLRB election and to report back after recording his findings on a paper pad.

To the extent stated, the Board order will be Enforced.

How later courts describe this case

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

1979: 119792026peak 1979 · 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