From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Interlake, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Feb 17, 1976
529 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir. 1976)

Opinion

No. 75-1547.

Submitted February 11, 1976.

Decided February 17, 1976.

Rody P. Biggert, Seyfarth, Shaw, Fair-weather Geraldson, Chicago, Ill., made argument for petitioner. He also filed appendix, brief and reply brief for petitioner.

Andrew Tranovich, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., made argument for respondent. Brief was filed for respondent in this Court. Counsel appearing on brief are: John C. Miller, Acting Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and Robert A. Giannasi, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C.

Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board.

Before LAY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and VAN PELT, Senior District Judge.

ROBERT VAN PELT, Senior District Judge, District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.


Interlake, Inc., requests this Court to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The order requires Interlake to cease and desist from threatening its employees with discharge or other disciplinary action if they seek the assistance of representatives of a labor organization, and from otherwise interfering with its employees in the exercise of their right to engage in union activities. It further requires Interlake to post appropriate notices. The Board cross applies for enforcement of the order. The Board's decision is reported at 218 NLRB No. 154, 89 LRRM 1794 (1975).

There is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board's finding that Interlake violated § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., by threatening to discipline an employee if he persisted in talking with the union about his individual grievances. We recognize that the threat was an isolated one, and that there is a serious question as to whether a remedial order is appropriate. Were we making the initial decision, we might agree with the Administrative Law Judge and the dissenting member of the Board that an order should not be issued; but we are not in that position. The Board has the primary responsibility to determine whether an order is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Virginia Elec. P. Co. v. National Labor Rel. Bd., 319 U.S. 533, 540, 63 S.Ct. 1214, 87 L.Ed. 1568 (1943); Truck Drivers, Etc., Loc. 705, Int. Bro. Team v. N.L.R.B., 509 F.2d 425 (D.C. Cir. 1974). It has decided that an order is necessary. We cannot say that it has abused its discretion. The threat to the employee was deliberate, direct and particularized. It was not disavowed.

We enforce the order of the Board.


Summaries of

Interlake, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Feb 17, 1976
529 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir. 1976)
Case details for

Interlake, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

Case Details

Full title:INTERLAKE, INC., PETITIONER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Feb 17, 1976

Citations

529 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir. 1976)

Citing Cases

Royal Packing Co. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.

In any case, the evidence of the incident conflicts as to whether Alcantar read the list aloud, whether he…

Champion Parts Rebuilders, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

We therefore enforce the Board's order here, but only because we recognize that it is for the Board and not…