Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Marquette Metal Products Co.

152 F.2d 964

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1946-01-14
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM. This case came on to be heard upon the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel; And it appearing that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, Title 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.; and it appearing that the conduct of respondent’s supervisory employees constituted interference, restraint and coercion in violation of the Act; H. J. Heinz Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U.S. 514, 518, 519, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309; National Labor Relations Board v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed National Labor Relations Board v. Marquette Metal Products Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
NATIONAL LABOR REL. BD. v. MARQUETTE METAL,152 F.2d 964(6th Cir. 1946)
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS CO.
No. 9991.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
January 14, 1946.
Petition for Enforcement of Order of the National Labor Relations Board.

Action by the National Labor Relations Board against the Marquette Metal Products Company to enforce an order of the board.

Order enforced.
David A. Morse, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

W.R. Price, of Cleveland, Ohio, for respondent.
Before ALLEN and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and MILLER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This case came on to be heard upon the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel;

And it appearing that there is substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, Title29 U.S.C. § 151et seq.,29 U.S.C.A. § 151et seq.; and it appearing that the conduct of respondent's supervisory employees constituted interference, restraint and coercion in violation of the Act; H.J. Heinz Co. v. National Labor Relations Board,311 U.S. 514,518,519,61 S.Ct. 320,85 L.Ed. 309; National Labor Relations Board v. M.A. Hanna Co., 6 Cir.,125 F.2d 786,788: It is ordered that a decree issue enforcing the order of the National Labor Relations Board as prayed in the petition.Page 966