# National Labor Relations Board v. Valley Plaza, Inc., D/B/A Captain Nemo's

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · August 12, 1983 · 715 F.2d 237

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471036

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. VALLEY PLAZA, INC., D/B/A Captain Nemo’s, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 12, 1983
- **Citations:** 715 F.2d 237; 114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2220; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 24927
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Wellford
- **Judges:** Jones, Wellford, Demascio
- **Cited by:** 45 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/9471036

## Opinion text

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I am persuaded with some reservations that the Board in this case has made out a case that the five waitresses were terminated in violation of §§ 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act in question, although it should be noted that in each instance of controversy the ALJ has credited the testimony of union witnesses and discredited company witnesses, even those who are no longer in the employ of the company and would logically seem to be disinterested. Furthermore, “uncorroborated testimony of an interested charging party does not amount to substantial evidence of an unfair labor practice.” NLRB v. Container Corp. of Am., 649 F.2d 1213, 1216 (6th Cir.1981). See also NLRB v. Elias Bros. Big Boy, 327 F.2d 421 (6th Cir. 1964); NLRB v. Otsego Ski Club, 542 F.2d 18 (6th Cir.1976). There is simply very little, if any, evidence in this record indicating that the company was aware of union activities among the waitresses who refused to report for their shift because of a dispute concerning future work schedules other than uncorroborated testimony of interested charging party witnesses, which itself is somewhat contradictory.
In any event, this is not the “ ‘exceptional’ case[ ]” in which the employer’s conduct is so “ ‘outrageous’ and ‘pervasive’ ” that a bargaining order is indicated. See NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 613 , 89 S.Ct. 1918, 1940 , 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969) (quoting NLRB v. S.S. Logan Packing Co., 386 F.2d 562, 570 (4th Cir.1967)). I accordingly dissent from enforcing that type of order in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471036. Public record. Not legal advice.