UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
October 23, 1968
WORKERS, AFL-CIO, PETITIONER
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT. REGENCY ELECTRONICS, INC., INTERVENOR. REGENCY ELECTRONICS, INC., PETITIONER
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
Before McGOWAN, TAMM and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judges.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 1968.CDC.221
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Board, Respondent. International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, Intervenor.
Nos. 21600, 21705.
October 23, 1968.
PER CURIAM: These petitions for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board do not present us with any significant legal issues for resolution but turn, rather, upon the adequacy of the evidence underlying the Board's findings of fact. The controversy grew out of an organizing effort which happened to coincide with a reorganization and shifting of the employer's manufacturing activities, thereby necessarily entailing certain lay-offs. The Board has found in this latter regard that a disproportionate share of the lay-offs was discriminatorily allocated to supporters of the union. This, and the demotion and discharge of the employe Lawrence, result in a conclusion that the employer violated Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Section 8(a)(1) was also found to be transgressed by the employer's interrogation about, and surveillance of, organizing interest and activity; and affirmative assistance by the employer of a company union was found to be contrary to Section 8(a)(2).
In support of its petition in No. 21,705, the employer urges that the Board's findings in these respects are belied by the evidence. We have examined the record, and we are unable to say that it was devoid of the substantial support contemplated by the standard which governs our review. The employer also complains of procedural unfairness by virtue of an amendment of the complaint at the start of the hearing. But, looking at all the circumstances, we do not think there was any abuse of discretion which handicapped the preparation and presentation of a defense.
In No. 21,600, the union complains of the Board's failure (1) to find violations in respect of two particular employees, and (2) to include more expansive remedial provisions in the order. As to the former, the Board's view of the evidence is far from irrational; and, in the matter of remedies, there are no compelling circumstances visible to us which warrant our intrusion upon the discretion customarily accorded the Board in this area.
The petitions for review are denied, and the Board's request for enforcement is granted.
It is so ordered .
© 2002 VersusLaw Inc.