NLRB V. UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORP.
179 F.2d 749 (2nd Cir. 1950)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over a judgment by the NLRB that ordered back pay
and reinstatement. National Labor Relations Board (P) sought an order enforcing its order
that Universal (D) reinstate and provide lost pay to an employee whom P found was discharged
for giving testimony hostile to D at a hearing before P.
FACTS: On November, 30 1943, Chairman and Kende testified at a hearing upon
representation after which Kende told Chairman that Chairman had perjured himself and Kende
testified on the stand that Chairman was either ignorant of the truth or he was deliberately
lying on many instances and that there was definite doubt regarding his suitability for
supervisory positions. This was during a hearing at NLRB (P) on who should be the
representative for Universal's (D) employees. Chairman had testified in favor of the
maintenance employees being recognized as a separate bargaining unit. D opposed that
recognition and Shapiro, a vice president and Kende, the chief engineer and Politzer, the
plant engineer opposed such appointment. Chairman was allegedly warned that if he testified
in favor of the maintenance employees, Kende would take it out on him. Just such a campaign
was alleged by Chairman as he was fired eventually for insubordination for alleging that a
superior was drunk. At the hearing regarding Chairman's firing, the examiner was not
satisfied that NLRB (P) had proved that Chairman was fired for giving the unfavorable
testimony at the representative hearing. However, when the full board heard the case, they
reversed the examiners ruling and overruled the finding that Politzer had told another that
Chairman was going to resign. P ordered D to reinstate Chairman who was found to be fired
because he gave testimony under the Wagner Act. D argued that Chairman was discharged for
different reasons. D argued that the new legislative amendments warranted a more stringent
judicial review than previously available and P’s holding was not supported by substantial
evidence.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment