TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. Laredo Packing Company

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LAREDO PACKING COMPANY, Respondent

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Laredo Packing Co., 625 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1980)
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
September 8, 1980
Docket
No. 79-2487
Judges
Goldberg, Tate, Johnson
Citations
625 F.2d 593105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 25151980 U.S. App. LEXIS 14277

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The record in this labor case reveals a rather sordid story of respondent Laredo *594 Packing Company’s attempts to obstruct its employees’ efforts to organize and its actions to destroy its employees’ support for their newly-certified union in the subsequent and bitter contractual negotiations. Respondent opposes the Board's petition for enforcement of its order by contending that the Board’s findings of unfair labor practices — illegal acts which include fifteen discriminatory discharges, one discriminatory reduction of working hours, unilateral wage increases during contractual negotiations which had yet to reach an impasse, numerous instances of interrogation and threats regarding union activity, threats of plant closure should the union be elected, prohibitions against the wearing of union insignia, and numerous occasions of surveillance— are unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

We have canvassed all portions of this massive record which are relevant to the unfair labor practices before us, and we conclude that none of the Board’s credibility determinations attacked by respondent is either inherently unreasonable or self-contradictory.

See, e. g., NLRB v. Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc., 584 F.2d 720, 730 (5th Cir. 1978). In short, our review of the record has led to our unwavering conviction that the Board’s findings of unfair labor practices are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. With particular regard to the eight truck drivers discharged due to their purported uninsurability, we rely on the Board’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion reported at 241 N.L.R.B. No. 24 (1979).

Accordingly, the petition for enforcement is GRANTED.

How later courts describe this case

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

1984: 119842026peak 1984 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. National Labor Relations Board v. Laredo Packing Company730 F.2d 405 (5th Cir. 1984)

Most recent

  1. National Labor Relations Board v. Laredo Packing Company730 F.2d 405 (5th Cir. 1984)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Randle-Eastern Ambulance Serv., Inc., 584 F.2d 720 (5th Cir. 1978) 29

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