# International Union of Electrical v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · November 28, 1980 · 650 F.2d 334

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7844377

## Case

- **Full name:** INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO-CLC v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, White Farm Equipment Company, Intervenor NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a Subsidiary of White Motor Corporation, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, Intervenor WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a Subsidiary of White Motor Corporation v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, Intervenor
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** November 28, 1980
- **Citations:** 650 F.2d 334; 209 U.S. App. D.C. 1; 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3344; 24 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 634; 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 11893
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Customs, Markey, Mikva, Patent, Wright
- **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/7844377

## Opinion text

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
These causes came on to be heard on petitions for review and cross-application for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board and were argued by counsel. While the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion, they have been accorded full consideration by the court. See Local Rule 13(c).
The order of the National Labor Relations Board is supported by substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole. See Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). Moreover, this court finds that the Board’s order is otherwise free from reversible legal error.
On consideration of the foregoing, generally for the reasons stated in the Board’s order, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this court that the petitions for review are hereby denied and the cross-application for enforcement is hereby granted.
MARKEY, Chief Judge, dissents from the foregoing order for the reasons stated in the following dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7844377. Public record. Not legal advice.