National Labor Relations Board v. Bedford Discounters, Inc.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. BEDFORD DISCOUNTERS, INC., Respondent
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The findings of the Board that the Bedford Discounters, Inc. violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et. seq. §§ 8(a)(1) by engaging in threats of reprisal, coercive interrogation, promises and grants of benefits and 8(a)(3) and (1) in discharging employees because of their union activity are amply supported by the record as a whole. Further, because the Board’s findings are clearly supported, we cannot regard the company’s resistance thereto as anything but frivolous: “Some penalty should attach to taking up our time with such a meritless contention.” N.L.R.B. v. Smith & Wesson, 424 F.2d 1072, 1073 (1st Cir. 1970). Application for enforcement of the order of the National Labor Relations Board is granted and pursuant to FRAP 38 the Board will recover, in addition to its regular costs, the sum of $250 for expenses.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- National Labor Relations Board v. Catalina Yachts
- Barbara C. JOHNSON v. ALLYN & BACON, INC.
- Kaynard v. MMIC, Inc.
- First National Insurance Company of America v. James T. Lynn, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Alvan R. Corkin
- NLRB v. Optica Lee Borinquen
- National Labor Relations Board v. Optica Lee Borinquen, Inc.
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.