U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1962

Oxwall Tool Co., Ltd., Warren Products, Ltd., Pioneer Merchandise Corp. Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided November 27, 1962 · Lumbard, Clark, Kaufman

310 F.2d 878; 51 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2595; 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3501 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Leonard L. Berliner, New York City (Baer, Marks, Friedman & Berliner, New York City, on the brief for Ox-Wall Products Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Slaff Brothers, New York City, on the brief for Oxwall Tool Co., Ltd., Warren Products, Ltd., and Pioneer Merchandise Corp.; Samuel Slaff, New York City, and Norman I. Klein, Brooklyn, of counsel), for petitioners., Allison W. Brown, Jr., National Labor Relations Board (Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Vivian Asplund, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Silverman v. Imperia Foods, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1986)

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.

We deny in open court the petition to set aside the order of the National Labor Relations Board, 135 N.L.R.B. 87, which found that the petitioners had committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158, by unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their attitude and activities with respect to the union and by threatening them with economic reprisal, and for violating Sections 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act in discriminatorily discharging certain employees in its assembly and shipping department at Oxford, New Jersey. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the Trial Exam *879 iner and the decision of the Board and we find the order of the Board, which directed that the employees be made whole for any losses which they may have suffered by reason of their discharge prior to April 30, 1961, to be an appropriate remedy.

Accordingly we deny the petition to review the order of the Board and grant the cross-petition of the Board for enforcement of its order.

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