803 F. 2d 1181 - National Labor Relations Board v. Pete O'Dell & Sons Steel Erectors E O'Dell E
803 F2d 1181 National Labor Relations Board v. Pete O'Dell & Sons Steel Erectors E O'Dell E
803 F.2d 1181
Unpublished Disposition
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
PETE O'DELL & SONS STEEL ERECTORS, Respondent.
Pete E. O'DELL d/b/a Pete E. O'Dell and Sons, Steel
Erectors, Petitioner,
v.
National Labor Relations Board, Respondent.
Nos. 86-2522L, 86-3019.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 25, 1986.
Decided Oct. 27, 1986.
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Charles R. Allen, Jr. on brief, for petitioner.
W. Christian Schumann; Sharon Margolis Apfel; Rosemary M. Collyer, General Counsel; John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel; Robert E. Allen, Associate General Counsel; Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate General Counsel on brief, for respondent.
N.L.R.B.
ENFORCEMENT GRANTED.
Before WINTER, Chief Judge, ERVIN, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Advertisement
The employer seeks to set aside the Board's findings which led the Board to conclude that the employer had violated Secs. 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), and 8(a)(5) of the Act. The Board found that the employer violated these provisions of the Act by telling employees that they were discharged for engaging in protected concerted activities, threatening employees if they engaged in protected concerted activities, coercively interrogating employees about their union activities, creating the impression that the employees' union activities were under surveillance, soliciting employee renunciation of protected concerted activities, discharging certain employees because they engaged in union organizing and other protected concerted activities, and refusing to execute and honor a collective bargaining agreement that the employer had negotiated with the union. The Board seeks enforcement of its remedial order and we grant enforcement.
With respect to each of the employer's alleged infractions of the Act found by the Board, the evidence was conflicting. However, in each instance substantial evidence supported the Board's findings. It is axiomatic that determinations of credibility are for the Board and its resolutions of conflicting evidence will not be disturbed unless its findings are clearly irrational. We think that the credibility resolutions of the Board in this case were carefully reasoned and unexceptionable.
It follows that the petition for review should be denied and the order enforced.
Because this appeal involves no new issues of law and application of well established rules would not be aided by oral argument, we have concluded to dispense with the same.
Enforcement Granted.