Opinion

National Labor Relations Board v. Singalong, Inc.

  • 652 F.2d 609
  • 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2429
  • 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 21235
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Filed
Jan 6, 1981
Status
Published
On the bench
Engel, Brown, Markey, Patent
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 46.6%

The opinion

ORDER

An Administrative Law Judge and the National Labor Relations Board have found the respondent, Singalong, Inc., violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to sign a collective bargaining contract embodying the terms of an oral agreement that had been made by a representative of Singalong and a representative of a Union. Decision and Order of the Board are reported at 239 N.L.R.B. No. 170. The Board’s order, as to which it seeks enforcement here, requires the respondent to desist from such unfair labor practice and from interfering with its employees’ exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. The order also requires the company to execute such collective bargaining agreement upon request and to give effect to such contract retroactively to October 1, 1977, to make whole respondent’s employees for losses suffered because of the failure to execute the contract, and to post notices.

The only issue in this case is whether or not there is substantial evidence in the record on the whole to support the Board’s determination that a representative of the Union and a representative of respondent

*610

orally agreed to the terms of a collective bargaining contract. The Union had represented the employees at respondent’s restaurant under a collective bargaining contract and negotiations went on for some time between a representative of the Union and a representative of respondent with respect to changes that would be made to the existing contract that was to expire on September 30, 1977. The Administrative Law Judge and the Board accepted as more credible the account of these negotiations testified to by the Union representative and concluded that there was an oral agreement containing the terms of a new contract between the parties. Accordingly, since the testimony of the Union representative that such an agreement had been made constitutes substantial evidence, the decision of the Board must be affirmed and its order enforced.

It is therefore ORDERED that the decision of the Board be and the same is hereby affirmed and its order be and the same is hereby 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.