Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bedford Discounters, Inc., 484 F.2d 923 (1st Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bedford Discounters, Inc., 484 F.2d 923 (1st Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. Optica Lee Borinquen, Inc.
1st Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
App. P. 38; Palmas Del Mar Co. v. NLRB, 797 F.2d 39, 40-41 (1st Cir. 1986); NLRB v. Bedford Discounters, Inc., 484 F.2d 923, 923 (1st Cir. 1973); NLRB v. Smith & Wesson, 424 F.2d 1072, 1073 (1st Cir. 1970). 11 So ordered. * Of the District of Oregon, sitting by designation
discussed Cited as authority (rule) NLRB v. Optica Lee Borinquen
1st Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
App. P. 38; Palmas Del Mar Co. v. NLRB, 797 F.2d 39, 40-41 (1st Cir. 1986); NLRB v. Bedford Discounters, Inc., 484 F.2d 923, 923 (1st Cir. 1973); NLRB v. Smith & Wesson, 424 F.2d 1072, 1073 (1st Cir. 1970).
cited Cited "see" First National Insurance Company of America v. James T. Lynn, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Alvan R. Corkin
1st Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See NLRB v. Bedford Discounters, Inc., 484 F.2d 923 (1 Cir. 1973); Eaton v. New Hanover County Board of Education, 459 F.2d 684 (4 Cir. 1972); Advisory Committee’s Note, 43 F.R.D. 61 , 155.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
BEDFORD DISCOUNTERS, INC., Respondent
73-1148.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Sep 20, 1973.
484 F.2d 923
Warren Cox Ogden, Jr., Atty., with whom Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Asst. Gen. Counsel and Robert Sewell, Atty., Washington, D. C., were on brief, for petitioner., George A. Burnstein, Philadelphia, Pa., with whom Kleinbard, Bell & Brecker, Philadelphia, Pa., was on brief, for respondent.
Coffin, Campbell, Kilkenny.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The findings of the Board that the Bedford Discounters, Inc. violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et. seq. §§ 8(a)(1) by engaging in threats of reprisal, coercive interrogation, promises and grants of benefits and 8(a)(3) and (1) in discharging employees because of their union activity are amply supported by the record as a whole. Further, because the Board’s findings are clearly supported, we cannot regard the company’s resistance thereto as anything but frivolous: “Some penalty should attach to taking up our time with such a meritless contention.” N.L.R.B. v. Smith & Wesson, 424 F.2d 1072, 1073 (1st Cir. 1970). Application for enforcement of the order of the National Labor Relations Board is granted and pursuant to FRAP 38 the Board will recover, in addition to its regular costs, the sum of $250 for expenses.