Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., Petitioner-Cross-Respondent v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Respondent-Cross-Petitioner, 463 F.2d 778 (5th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., Petitioner-Cross-Respondent v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Respondent-Cross-Petitioner, 463 F.2d 778 (5th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: G4S Secure Solutions Inc. v. NLRB (ca11, 2017-09-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) G4S Secure Solutions Inc. v. NLRB (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co. v. NLRB, 463 F.2d 778, 779 (5th Cir. 1972). 4 Because Appendix A detailed the numerous unfair labor practices that occurred in connection with the Phoenix-area Metro contract, it was appropriate for the Board to order G4S to post that notice throughout the Phoenix area.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Nancy P. Schumann, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard P. Schumann, Deceased, United States of America v. One Assortment of Eighty-Two (82) Firearms
11th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
United States v. Pauline, 625 F.2d 684, 684 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Siano, 463 F.2d 778, 778 (5th Cir.1972); see also United States v. Romano, 755 F.2d 1401, 1402 (11th Cir.1985) (same result where defendant died pending the government's petition for rehearing.) 1 Accordingly, we dismiss the criminal appeal as moot and remand to the district court with directions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Schumann ex rel. Estate of Schumann
11th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
United States v. Pauline, 625 F.2d 684, 684 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Siano, 463 F.2d 778, 778 (5th Cir.1972); see also United States v. Romano, 755 F.2d 1401, 1402 (11th Cir.1985) (same result where defendant died pending the government’s petition for rehearing.) 1 Accordingly, we dismiss the criminal appeal as moot and remand to the district court with directions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United Steelworkers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, Florida Steel Corporation, Intervenor. Florida Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, United Steelworkers of America, Intervenor
D.C. Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
P. Stevens & Co. v. NLRB, 380 F.2d 292 , 304 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 564 , 19 L.Ed.2d 600 (1967); 406 F.2d 1017 , 1021-22 (4th Cir. 1968); 612 F.2d 881 , 882 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, -- U.S. --, 101 S.Ct. 315 , 66 L.Ed.2d 145 (1980); 623 F.2d 322 , 327 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, -- U.S. --, 101 S.Ct. 856 , 66 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981); Gerry's Cash Markets, Inc. v. NLRB, 602 F.2d 1021, 1025 (1st Cir. 1979); NLRB v. Jack LaLanne Management Corp., 539 F.2d 292, 295 (2d Cir. 1976); Texas Gulf Sulpher Co. v. NLRB, 463 F.2d 778, 779 (5th Cir. 1972); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United Steelworkers of America v. National Labor Relations Board
D.C. Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
P. Stevens & Co. v. NLRB, 380 F.2d 292 , 304 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1005 , 88 S.Ct. 564 , 19 L.Ed.2d 600 (1967); 406 F.2d 1017 , 1021-22 (4th Cir. 1968); 612 F.2d 881 , 882 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 918 , 101 S.Ct. 315 , 66 L.Ed.2d 145 (1980); 623 F.2d 322 , 327 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1077 , 101 S.Ct. 856 , 66 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981); Gerry’s Cash Markets, Inc. v. NLRB, 602 F.2d 1021, 1025 (1st Cir. 1979); NLRB v. Jack LaLanne Management Corp., 539 F.2d 292, 295 (2d Cir. 1976); Texas Gulf Sulpher Co. v. NLRB, 463 F.2d 778, 779 (5th Cir. 1972); Winn-Dixie Store…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mead v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
D. Minnesota · 1977 · confidence medium
P. Stevens & Co. v. NLRB, 461 F.2d 490 , 495 (4th Cir. 1972); Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. NLRB, 463 F.2d 778, 779 (5th Cir. 1972).
cited Cited "see" National Labor Relations Board v. Union Nacional de Trabajadores
1st Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. NLRB, 463 F.2d 778, 779 (5th Cir. 1972); J.
cited Cited "see" National Labor Relations Board v. Union Nacional De Trabajadores and Its Agent, Arturo Grant, (Two Cases). National Labor Relations Board v. Union Nacional De Trabajadores and Its Agent, Alcides Serrano, National Labor Relations Board v. Union Nacional De Trabajadores and Its Agent, Obreros en Huelga De Catalytic
1st Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. NLRB, 463 F.2d 778, 779 (5th Cir. 1972); J.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TEXAS GULF SULPHUR COMPANY, Petitioner-Cross-Respondent,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner
72-1272.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 17, 1972.
463 F.2d 778
John B. Abercrombie, Daniel O. Goforth, of Counsel: Baker & Botts, Houston, Tex., for petitioner-cross-respondent., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D. C., Clifford Potter, Director, Region 23, NLRB, Houston, Tex., Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Marion Griffin, Lawrence D. Levien, Attys., NLRB for respondent-cross-petitioner.
Gewin, Ainsworth, Simpson.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This case is before us on the petition of Texas Gulf Sulphur Company to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board, issued against the Company on January 24, 1972, 195 N.L.R.B. No. 10. The Board has filed a cross-application for enforcement of its order, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 160. The Board found that Texas Gulf discharged four employees (Brownshadel, Breaux, Sherman and Munoz) in violation of sections 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. It concluded that although the company was justified in laying off a certain number of employees for economic reasons, it laid off the four employees in question because of their union activities. The issues before us are particularly factual and turn on the credibility of witnesses who testified below. There is substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole to support the Board’s findings. See 29 U.S.C. § 160; Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Rel. Bd., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); N. L. R. B. v. Hertz Corporation, 5 Cir., 1971, 449 F.2d 711.

In addition to ordering the Company to post appropriate notices at the plant where the four employees worked, the Board ordered the Company to post the notices at other facilities within the particular division of the Company located in the same geographical area. The Board sought to eliminate any coercive impact at the other plants resulting from the unfair labor practice. The order is well within the Board’s broad remedial authority. See National Labor Relations Board v. Lummus Co., 5 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 377; J. P. Stevens 6 Co., Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 533.

Accordingly, the Board’s order is enforced.