Hollywood Brands, Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent, 326 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1964)
Annotate this CasePetition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.
Fred S. Ball, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for petitioner.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before RIVES and CAMERON, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
On rehearing petitioner earnestly urges that the questions of (1) whether it refused to bargain in good faith on contract changes proposed by the union, (2) whether it refused to furnish to the union access to pertinent wage date, and (3) whether its grant of a wage increase without consulting the union amounted to a violation of sections 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act presented issues of law rather than of fact as held in our per curiam opinion enforcing the order of the Board. 324 F.2d 956. We disagree. The law concerning all three questions is so well settled as not to justify further discussion. The only debatable question concerns the Board's factual inferences and findings which, in our opinion, are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The petition for rehearing is
Denied.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
