Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Judah Amc & Jeep, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 76-2097 (1977)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 76-2097 Visitors: 28
Filed: Aug. 31, 1977
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 562 F.2d 1080 96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2149 , 82 Lab.Cas. P 10,107 JUDAH AMC & JEEP, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 76-2097. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 31, 1977. Decided Aug. 31, 1977. Lawrence F. Scalise and Keith E. Uhl, Scalise, Scism, Gentry, Brick & Brick, Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioner. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent; John D. Burgoyne, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Anne H. A
More

562 F.2d 1080

96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2149, 82 Lab.Cas. P 10,107

JUDAH AMC & JEEP, INC., Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 76-2097.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 31, 1977.
Decided Aug. 31, 1977.

Lawrence F. Scalise and Keith E. Uhl, Scalise, Scism, Gentry, Brick & Brick, Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioner.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent; John D. Burgoyne, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Anne H. Andrews, Atty., John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the briefs.

Before BRIGHT, ROSS and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Judah AMC & Jeep, Inc., has petitioned this court to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board filed December 10, 1976. The Board has cross-petitioned for enforcement.

2

After thoroughly reviewing the record we find sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge, affirmed by the Board, that petitioner violated §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (3), by discriminatorily laying off and refusing to reinstate Stanley Strock because of his union and protected concerted activities. However, we find that the conclusion that petitioner violated § 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating Strock concerning a union meeting he attended is not substantiated. Therefore, we order that the Administrative Law Judge's recommended order, adopted by the Board, with the exception of 1(a), be enforced. Each party shall pay its own costs.

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