Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1943

National Labor Relations Board v. Sport-Wear Hosiery Mills

National Labor Relations Board v. Sport-Wear Hosiery Mills
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided April 13, 1943 · Hicks, McAllister, Simons
134 F.2d 824; 12 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 798; 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3693 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Robert B. Watts, Ernest A. Gross, Howard Lichtenstein, Jacob I. ICarro, and Harry G. Carlson, all of Washington, D. C., and Henry Shore, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner., S. T. Mallen, of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Reuel R. Webb, of Etowah, Tenn., for respondent.

National Labor Relations Board v. Sport-Wear Hosiery Mills

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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 of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board.

The jurisdiction of the Board is conceded.

The Board found that respondent violated Sections 8(1) and 8(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (1 and 3), by the discriminatory discharge of its employees, Horace McConkey and A1 Roper, and by interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Sec. 7 of the Act, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A., § 151 et seq. We need not enter into a detailed discussion of the findings or the evidence upon which they were based. In this respect we are content to follow the procedure in N.L.R.B. v. Swift & Co. et al., 6 Cir., 127 F.2d 30, and cases there cited. An examination of the record discloses that the findings are supported by substantial evidence and we are not free to set them aside. N.L.R.B. v. Nevada Cons. Copper Corp., 316 U.S. 105, 62 S.Ct. 960, 86 L.Ed. 1305.

Enforcement of the order is decreed. See N.L.R.B. v. Bersted Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 128 F.2d 738, amending the opinion in the same case in 6 Cir., 124 F.2d 409.

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