U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 1973

National Labor Relations Board v. Bedford Discounters, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Decided September 20, 1973 · Coffin, Campbell, Kilkenny

484 F.2d 923 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Warren Cox Ogden, Jr., Atty., with whom Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Asst. Gen. Counsel and Robert Sewell, Atty., Washington, D. C., were on brief, for petitioner., George A. Burnstein, Philadelphia, Pa., with whom Kleinbard, Bell & Brecker, Philadelphia, Pa., was on brief, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

National Labor Relations Board v. Catalina Yachts (9th Cir. 1982)
NLRB v. Optica Lee Borinquen (1st Cir. 1993)
National Labor Relations Board v. Optica Lee Borinquen, Inc. (1st Cir. 1993)
NLRB v. Optica Lee Borinquen (1st Cir. 1993)
Barbara C. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. ALLYN & BACON, INC., Defendant, Appellee (1st Cir. 1984)
Kaynard v. Mmic, Inc. (2d Cir. 1984)
Kaynard v. MMIC, Inc. (2d Cir. 1984)
First National Insurance Company of America v. James T. Lynn, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Alvan R. Corkin (1st Cir. 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The findings of the Board that the Bedford Discounters, Inc. violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et. seq. §§ 8(a)(1) by engaging in threats of reprisal, coercive interrogation, promises and grants of benefits and 8(a)(3) and (1) in discharging employees because of their union activity are amply supported by the record as a whole. Further, because the Board’s findings are clearly supported, we cannot regard the company’s resistance thereto as anything but frivolous: “Some penalty should attach to taking up our time with such a meritless contention.” N.L.R.B. v. Smith & Wesson, 424 F.2d 1072, 1073 (1st Cir. 1970). Application for enforcement of the order of the National Labor Relations Board is granted and pursuant to FRAP 38 the Board will recover, in addition to its regular costs, the sum of $250 for expenses.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.