Opinion

National Labor Relations Board v. Michalik

  • 201 F.2d 48
  • 31 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2264
  • 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3518
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Filed
Dec 19, 1952
Status
Published
On the bench
Martin, McALLISTER, Miller, Per Curiam
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 67.7%

The opinion

PER CURIAM.

The above cause coming on to be heard upon the transcript of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel in open court, and it appearing that the Board’s findings that respondent violated Section 8(a) (1, 3, 5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (a) (1, 3, 5), are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; that the denial of respondent’s mo-tion for continuance did not constitute an abuse of discretion or result in the denial of due process of law; and that compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 159 (f), need not be alleged and proved as a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction over a labor controversy by the Board, and the court being duly advised,

Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the order of the National Labor Relations Board be enforced.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.