From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

N.L.R.B. v. Toffenetti Restaurant Company

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Nov 28, 1962
311 F.2d 219 (2d Cir. 1962)

Opinion

No. 134, Docket 27674.

Argued November 27, 1962.

Decided November 28, 1962.

James McC. Harkless, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Melvin J. Welles, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Pauline Teitelbaum, of Teitelbaum Teitelbaum, New York City (Morris Teitelbaum, New York City, on the brief), for respondent.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and CLARK and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.


The National Labor Relations Board found that Toffenetti Restaurant Company, Inc., violated the National Labor Relations Act, § 8(a) (1, 3), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1, 3), by discontinuing bonus payments to those of its employees who were represented by the union, by disqualifying union members from participation in its profit-sharing plan, and by liquidating the interests of union-represented employees in the profit-sharing plan in a discriminatory manner. The Board also found that respondent violated § 8(1, 5), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1, 5), by unilateral effectuation of these discriminatory policies and by refusing to furnish the union, upon its request, with a copy of the profit-sharing plan and its amendment. 136 NLRB No. 106. These findings are amply supported by the record.

The petition for enforcement is granted and the Board's order will be enforced in full.


Summaries of

N.L.R.B. v. Toffenetti Restaurant Company

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Nov 28, 1962
311 F.2d 219 (2d Cir. 1962)
Case details for

N.L.R.B. v. Toffenetti Restaurant Company

Case Details

Full title:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. TOFFENETTI RESTAURANT…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Nov 28, 1962

Citations

311 F.2d 219 (2d Cir. 1962)

Citing Cases

N.L.R.B. v. Wonder State Manufacturing Company

This is a question of fact and, if the Board's finding to that effect is supported by substantial evidence,…