Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gen. Security Serv. v. NLRB, 98-3485 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 98-3485 Visitors: 47
Filed: Jul. 28, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-3485 _ General Security Services Corporation, * * Petitioner, * * On Appeal From the v. * National Labor Relations Board. * National Labor Relations Board, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. * _ No. 98-3924 _ General Security Services Corporation, * * Respondent, * * v. * * National Labor Relations Board, * * Petitioner. * _ Submitted: June 17, 1999 Filed: July 28, 1999 _ Before BOWMAN and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and LONGSTAFF,1 District
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 98-3485 ___________ General Security Services Corporation, * * Petitioner, * * On Appeal From the v. * National Labor Relations Board. * National Labor Relations Board, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. * ___________ No. 98-3924 ___________ General Security Services Corporation, * * Respondent, * * v. * * National Labor Relations Board, * * Petitioner. * ___________ Submitted: June 17, 1999 Filed: July 28, 1999 ___________ Before BOWMAN and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and LONGSTAFF,1 District Judge. ___________ PER CURIAM. General Security Services Corporation (GSSC) petitions for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board finding that GSSC violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by demoting, transferring, suspending, and terminating employee Alfred Cracolici on account of his union activity. The Board cross-applies for enforcement of its order, which, among other things, requires GSSC to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices found, directs GSSC to offer reinstatement to Cracolici, and orders the posting of a remedial notice. Having reviewed the record and having considered the arguments of the parties, we conclude that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the Board's findings. No error of law appears, and there is nothing to be gained by rehashing the facts of this fact-intensive case. Accordingly, without further discussion, the petition for review is denied and the Board's cross-application for enforcement of its order is granted. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 1 The Honorable R. E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. -2-
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer