Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Robert E. Anderson & Richard E. Anderson, Copartners, D/B/A Anderson Cabinets, 611 F.2d 1225 (8th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Robert E. Anderson & Richard E. Anderson, Copartners, D/B/A Anderson Cabinets, 611 F.2d 1225 (8th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
Robert E. ANDERSON and Richard E. Anderson, Copartners, D/B/A Anderson Cabinets, Respondent
79-1389.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Dec 10, 1979.
611 F.2d 1225
Andrew F. Tranovich, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C. (argued), John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on brief, for petitioner., Edwin P. Harrison, Clayton, Mo., for respondent.
Heaney, Bright, Ross.
Published

ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT

The National Labor Relations Board petitioned for the enforcement of its order against Robert E. Anderson and Richard E. Anderson, copartners, d/b/a Anderson Cabinets. The Board’s decision and order are reported at 241 NLRB No. 72,100 L.R.R.M. 1606 (1979). After a careful review of the record, we are convinced that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board’s finding that Robert Rhyneer was a supervisory employee and that the employer violated § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5), by preparing, circulating and filing a petition seeking to decertify the Carpenters[*1226] District Council of Greater St. Louis, AFL-CIO, and by withdrawing recognition from the Carpenters in reliance upon this employer-sponsored petition.

There is also substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s finding that the Company violated § 8(a)(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), by discharging Floyd Wildhaber who participated in a strike of the Carpenters against the Company in protest of the unlawful withdrawal of recognition and that it violated § 8(a)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), by various acts of interference.

Accordingly, we enforce the Board’s order.