Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
Standard Dry Wall Prods., Inc. v. Nat’l Labor Rels. Bd., 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1951-04-25
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., insists that there is not sufficient evidence on “the whole record” as that phrase is used in the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 237, as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq. and the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, *363 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 71 S.Ct. 456, and National Labor Relations Board v. Pittsburgh Steamship Company, 71 S.Ct. 453, to support the Board’s findings that the petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1) and (3). We conclude that the evidence supporting the Board’s decision is substantial when viewed in the light furnished by the record in its entirety, including the body of evidence opposed to the Board’s view.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 5 opinions
The petitioner, Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., insists that there is not sufficient evidence on “the whole record” as that phrase is used in the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 237, as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq. and the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, *363 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 71 S.Ct. 456, and National Labor Relations Board v. Pittsburgh Steamship Company, 71 S.Ct. 453, to support the Board’s findings that the petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1) and (3). We conclude that the evidence supporting the Board’s decision is substantial when viewed in the light furnished by the record in its entirety, including the body of evidence opposed to the Board’s view. We are also of the opinion that the decision of the Board is reasonable and fair.
We will enforce the Board’s order. A decree may be submitted.