Oxwall Tool Co., Ltd., Warren Prods., Ltd., Pioneer Merch. Corp. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 310 F.2d 878 (2d Cir. 1962). · Go Syfert
Search
Oxwall Tool Co., Ltd., Warren Prods., Ltd., Pioneer Merch. Corp. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 310 F.2d 878 (2d Cir. 1962). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
OXWALL TOOL CO., Ltd., Warren Products, Ltd., Pioneer Merchandise Corp. Co., Inc., Petitioners,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
27445_1.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 27, 1962.
310 F.2d 878
Leonard L. Berliner, New York City (Baer, Marks, Friedman & Berliner, New York City, on the brief for Ox-Wall Products Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Slaff Brothers, New York City, on the brief for Oxwall Tool Co., Ltd., Warren Products, Ltd., and Pioneer Merchandise Corp.; Samuel Slaff, New York City, and Norman I. Klein, Brooklyn, of counsel), for petitioners., Allison W. Brown, Jr., National Labor Relations Board (Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Vivian Asplund, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Lumbard, Clark, Kaufman.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

We deny in open court the petition to set aside the order of the National Labor Relations Board, 135 N.L.R.B. 87, which found that the petitioners had committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158, by unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their attitude and activities with respect to the union and by threatening them with economic reprisal, and for violating Sections 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act in discriminatorily discharging certain employees in its assembly and shipping department at Oxford, New Jersey. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the Trial Exam[*879] iner and the decision of the Board and we find the order of the Board, which directed that the employees be made whole for any losses which they may have suffered by reason of their discharge prior to April 30, 1961, to be an appropriate remedy.

Accordingly we deny the petition to review the order of the Board and grant the cross-petition of the Board for enforcement of its order.