TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. Sevakis Industries, Inc.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SEVAKIS INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sevakis Indus., 652 F.2d 600 (6th Cir. 1980)
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
October 16, 1980
Docket
No. 78-1553
Judges
Edwards, Weick, Peck
Citations
652 F.2d 600108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 24261980 U.S. App. LEXIS 13090

Opinion

ORDER On receipt and consideration of a decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board panel in this case, reported at 233 N.L.R.B. No. 50, which order adopted in whole the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge who heard five separate charges filed by the union against the employer claiming violations of § 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.

(1976); and Noting that the many changes in policy and disciplinary measures adopted by the company came close on the heels of a union card-signing campaign and a subsequent Board-conducted election which the union won by a 16-8 vote; and Further noting that President Sevakis, in response to a not very politely phrased complaint from one employee, responded, “You guys wanted a union and this is the way things are going to be,” and that foreman Landry responded to a similar complaint about the new rules by replying, “it was going to get a whole lot tougher,”; and Reading the progression of events as set forth in the briefs of the parties and the findings of fact of the Administrative Law Judge which have now been adopted by the Board in toto; and While we might have viewed various aspects of these charges differently if we were the fact-finders, and if the charges were isolated from one another, the cumulative effect of the evidence is such as to convince us that we cannot appropriately hold that the findings of fact and conclusions of law adopted by the Board are not supported by substantial evidence on the whole record.

Enforcement of the Board’s order is therefore granted.

How later courts describe this case

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

1991: 119912026peak 1991 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hyatt Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board939 F.2d 361 (6th Cir. 1991)

Most recent

  1. Hyatt Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board939 F.2d 361 (6th Cir. 1991)

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