Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

National Labor Relations Board v. Pinter Bros. Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT.


October 30, 1978

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER
v.
PINTER BROS., INC., RESPONDENT.

Before FEINBERG, MULLIGAN, Circuit Judges and PRATT, District Judge.

The Board found that Pinter Bros., Inc., violated various sections of the National Labor Relations Act by discharging two union activists, laying off two union supporters, constructively discharging another union supporter and refusing to rehire her, by changing the terms and conditions of employment of another employee, by threatening employees with reprisals and by promising benefits for a union defeat.*fn*

The Board properly could infer from the evidence that the discharges of employees Barber and Pagliarulo and the layoffs of employees Healy and Gulbrandsen were motivated by anti-union animus. The timing and abruptness of the discharges and layoffs and the selective enforcement of a telephone policy against Barber and Pagliarulo support the Board's conclusions. On the record, it was also proper to find that employee Bonadonna was constructively discharged because of her union activities. The company's refusal to accept the retraction of her resignation supports the inference that the purpose in interrogating her was to provoke her resignation.

The timing of the change in the lateness and medical policies and of the criticisms of employee Lufker strongly indicates that she too was the victim of discrimination on the basis of her union activities and her testimony before the Board. The findings that the company violated ยง 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening reprisals against union supporters and promising benefits for a union defeat also are supported by substantial evidence. Employees reasonably could have concluded that the company's statements concerning loss of jobs and pension benefits were intended as threats of the company's reactions if the union were successful, rather than objective, carefully phrased predictions of consequences beyond the company's control.

We hold that the findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidence on the record.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.