U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1970

National Labor Relations Board v. V & H Industries, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided October 21, 1970 · Danaher, Friendly, Hays, Per Curiam

433 F.2d 9; 75 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2604; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6831 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Joseph E. Mayer, Washington, D. C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Robert A. Giannasi, Atty., N. L. R. B., on the brief), for petitioner., Jeremy Y. Cohen, Buffalo, N. Y. (Genuino J. Grande, Flaherty & Cohen, Cohen, Lombardo, Blewett, Fisher & Hite, Buffalo, N. Y., on the brief), for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Hollis v. Risenhoover (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2019)
The Florsheim Shoe Store Company Of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. National Labor Relations Board (2d Cir. 1977)
Florsheim Shoe Store Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (2d Cir. 1977)
National Labor Relations Board v. George J. Roberts & Sons, Inc., D/B/A the Roberts Press (2d Cir. 1971)

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 National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its orders requiring respondent V & H Industries, Inc. to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices, to reinstate with back pay employees William Bieniek, Norman Kwasniewski, James Borowik and Allen Schmidt who were discriminatorily laid off, to reinstate with back pay employee Rita Kwasniewski who the Board found was not returned to work because of her testimony before the Board, and to bargain with the Union (International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers) upon request.

The Board’s findings that the Employer violated Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), by threatening its employees with reprisals for engaging in union activities, are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, as are the findings that four employees were laid off in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and 8(a) (1) for union activity and another employee was refused reinstatement in violation of Section 8(a) (4) and 8(a) (1) because of her testimony at a Board hearing.

There is also substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s finding that the Employer violated Section 8(a) (5) and 8(a) (1) by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.

The Employer’s unfair labor practices justify the Board in imposing a bargaining order. N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969). Under the Gissel case the choice of an appropriate remedy is entrusted largely to the Board’s expertise. N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., supra at n. 32. The Board made the required finding that a fair election was not possible and no reason is advanced which would authorize us to reject that finding.

Order enforced.

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