Case Name: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. AFFILIATED FOOD STORES, INC., Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1965-12-01
Citations: 353 F.2d 287
Docket Number: No. 22060
Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. AFFILIATED FOOD STORES, INC., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 353
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. AFFILIATED FOOD STORES, INC., Respondent.
No. 22060.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 1, 1965.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Glen M. Bendixsen, Atty., N. L. R. B., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Leo N. McGuire, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Emil Corenbleth, Dallas, Tex., for respondent.
Before JONES, Senior Judge, and GEWIN and BELL, Circuit Judges.
Of the Court of Claims, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
There being an abundance of evidence to support the Board decision that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. Section 158 (a) (3) and (1), in discharging employee Gordy, the order insofar as it is based on his discharge will be enforced.
The absence of substantial evidence to support the claimed Section 8(a) (1) violation, 29 U.S.C.A., Section 158(a) (1), based on the interrogation of employee Calloway requires that we deny enforcement of the order as it relates to this conduct. The evidence falls far short of that in N. L. R. B. v. Harbinson-Fisher Manufacturing Co., (5 Cir. 1962) 304 F.2d 738, and that case, we think, represents the outerlimits of the application of interference as it is proscribed in Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The circumstances of the questioning tended toward coercion there but not here.
Enforced in part; denied in part.