From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Levinson's Owl Rexall Drugs, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 4, 1968
405 F.2d 494 (9th Cir. 1968)

Opinion

No. 22259.

December 4, 1968.

Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Roy O. Hoffman, Dir., N.L.R.B., Julius Rosenbaum (argued), Glen M. Bendixsen, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Laurence P. Corbett (argued), of Corbett Welden, Berkeley, Cal., Carroll, Davis, Burdick McDonough, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before MERRILL, BROWNING and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.


The NLRB seeks enforcement of its order entered respecting respondent as reported at 161 N.L.R.B. No. 133.

While the Board might well have gone the other way (as the hearing examiner did), we find substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board's finding that respondent violated § 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) and (1), by discriminatorily discharging employee Beverly Marsh to discourage union membership and activity.

Accordingly the Board's order is entitled to enforcement. It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Levinson's Owl Rexall Drugs, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 4, 1968
405 F.2d 494 (9th Cir. 1968)
Case details for

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Levinson's Owl Rexall Drugs, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LEVINSON'S OWL REXALL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 4, 1968

Citations

405 F.2d 494 (9th Cir. 1968)

Citing Cases

N.L.R.B. v. Miller Redwood Company

The Board properly drew the inference and made the conclusion that the company "discharged Davis to…

Brooks v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Our standard of review is not altered because the Board and the administrative law judge disagreed. NLRB v.…