Case Name: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. RUGCROFTERS OF PUERTO RICO, Inc.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1954-06-07
Citations: 213 F.2d 537
Docket Number: No. 4810
Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. RUGCROFTERS OF PUERTO RICO, Inc.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 213
Pages: 537–538

Head Matter:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. RUGCROFTERS OF PUERTO RICO, Inc.
No. 4810.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
June 7, 1954.
Ruth V. Reel, Washington D. C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Louis Schwartz, Atty. Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Philip Licari, Santurce, Puerto Rico, for respondent.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The National Labor; (Relations Board petitions for enforcement. of its.prder against' respondent .issued' December 2, 1953. The unfair labor practice found by the Board 'was ' the' "discriminatory discharge by respondent of one Juan Jose Arcelayv Respondent was directed to offer reinstatement- to the discharged employee with back pay.- -At the same time the Board issued a cease and desist order in the customary terms.
Before the Board, respondent filed exceptions to the trial' examiner's report, challenging the examiner's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations. ' Counsel for'.respondent filed an appearance in this court but did not appear at the oral argument 'nor.' filé a brief on behalf óf réspóndérit. /He did obtain from this court'an order enlarging the time for.-the filing of respondent's brief from April 10 to May 17, 1954, but sought no _ further extension. , Under thg circumstances we content ourselves with -stating our ultimate conclusion: We •have satisfied ourselves that the Board had jurisdiction .to issue the order; that the finding as to the discriminatory discharge was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; and that the remedial order of the Board was •within its authority.
A decree will be entered enforcing the order of the Board.