# National Labor Relations Board v. Floyd Epperson and United Dairy Farmers, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · March 12, 1974 · 491 F.2d 1390

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/317031

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. Floyd EPPERSON and United Dairy Farmers, Inc., Respondents
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 12, 1974
- **Citations:** 491 F.2d 1390; 86 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2336
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Edwards, Engel, Miller
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/317031

## Opinion text

ORDER
This is an application by the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order finding that Floyd Epperson and United Da'iry Farmers, Inc. were joint employers of Epperson’s drivers and jointly and severally liable for violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging employees Archie Ball, Bob Rumpke, Charles Dorsel and Tom Thomas for engaging in protected, concerted activities. The two issues on appeal are whether the Board’s finding of joint employment is supported by the record, and whether there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s finding that Epperson and United Dairy Farmers violated the Act by discharging the said employees.
We have carefully examined the record and, while the question of joint employment may be arguable, we find that there is substantial evidence in the record, considered as a whole, to support the Board’s finding and conclusion that the employees were jointly employed. We further find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that the two employers violated Sec. 8 (a)(1) of the Act by discharging the said employees. The order of enforcement entered by the Board is consistent with its finding of joint employment and Section 8(a)(1) violation.
The Board’s order will therefore be enforced.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/317031. Public record. Not legal advice.