Case Name: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. REDWING CARRIERS, INC., Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1978-12-22
Citations: 586 F.2d 1066
Docket Number: No. 77-3161
Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. REDWING CARRIERS, INC., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 586
Pages: 1066–1068

Head Matter:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. REDWING CARRIERS, INC., Respondent.
No. 77-3161.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 22, 1978.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1979.
James C. Hill, Circuit Judge, concurred in part and dissented in part and filed opinion.
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Jay Shanklin, Supervisor, Patricia C. Matthews, Atty., John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor, Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Alexander E. Wilson, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Before JONES, AINSWORTH and HILL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The National Labor Relations Board found that Redwing Carriers, Inc., the respondent, violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., by unlawfully interrogating and threatening employees with loss of jobs and other reprisals for engaging in union activities, creating an impression of surveillance, and soliciting employees to speak to other employees in opposition to a union. The Board further found that the discharges by Redwing of three employees were motivated by their union activities, and therefore violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The Board's order requires the Company to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and requires Redwing Carriers to offer the discharged employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, to make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered and to post appropriate notices, 224 NLRB 530.
The question before the Court is whether there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board's findings. Although the Board disagreed with its Administrative Law Judge in some of its findings and one of the members of the Board disagreed with the other two members of the Board panel as to some of the findings, there is substantial evidence in support of the findings. It follows, therefore, that the Board's order will be
ENFORCED.