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

National Labor Relations Board v. Rawac Plating Company

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided February 20, 1970 · McCree, Combs, Brooks

422 F.2d 1259; 73 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2558; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10611 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Ira Goldberg, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Robert A. Giannasi, Madge F. Jefferson, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on brief., Argued by Thomas E. Haekett, Springfield, Ohio, for respondent, Hackett & Malina, Springfield, Ohio, on brief.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

National Labor Relations Board v. Downslope Industries, Inc., and Greenbrier Industries, Inc. (6th Cir. 1982)
National Labor Relations Board v. Benmit Division, United States Tubular, Inc. (6th Cir. 1987)
National Labor Relations Board v. Baja's Place (6th Cir. 1984)
Itt Lighting Fixtures, Division of Itt Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board (6th Cir. 1983)
National Labor Relations Board v. Local 212, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (Uaw) (6th Cir. 1982)
National Labor Relations Board v. Franklin Property Company, Inc., D/B/A the Hilton Inn (6th Cir. 1980)
National Labor Relations Board v. Ronald Hackenberger D/B/A Ron's Trucking Service (6th Cir. 1976)
National Labor Relations Board v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18, Afl-Cio (6th Cir. 1974)

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 seeks enforcement of its order, reported at 172 N.L.R.B. No. 180 (Aug. 20, 1968), finding respondent Rawac Plating Company in violation of §§ 8(a) (3) and 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a) (3), 158(a) (1). The Board found that the company discharged six of its employees because of their union sympathies and coercively interrogated its employees about union activities. Respondent denies that there was coercive interrogation and claims that there were valid business reasons for the discharges, and that it was just coincidence that they occurred during a union organizing campaign. It is, of course, the Board’s function and not ours to resolve questions of fact and credibility when there is conflict in the testimony. If there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings, they must be accepted by this court. National Labor Relations Act, § 10(e), 29 U.S.C. § 160(e); Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); N. L. R. B. v. Challenge-Cook Bros. of Ohio, Inc., 374 F.2d 147, 152 (6th Cir. 1967). Our examination of the record discloses substantial evidence to support the findings of the Board.

Respondent asks us to deny enforcement because the Board’s Trial Examiner refused to grant the company a second continuance after its president had suffered a heart attack. It appears from the record that respondent was not prejudiced by this denial. Respondent’s attorney made a proffer of evidence which the company’s president could *1261 have supplied on regaining his health, but all of this proffered testimony concerned his conversations with other officers and supervisory personnel, to which the latter were competent and able to testify. Under these circumstances the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion. See, e. g., N. L. R. B. v. Dal-Tex Optical Co., 310 F.2d 58, 62 (5th Cir. 1962); Lloyd Fry Roofing Co. v. NLRB, 222 F.2d 938, 940 (1st Cir., 1955).

The order of the Board is enforced.

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