Bromine Division, Drug Research, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Sixth Circuit

Bromine Division, Drug Research, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

621 F.2d 806, 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2370, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 18177

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 1980

Docket77-1732

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 621 F.2d 806 (Bromine Division, Drug Research, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bromine Division, Drug Research, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 621 F.2d 806, 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2370, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 18177 (6th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

ORDER

Petitioner Drug Research, Inc., seeks review of the Board’s order and the Board seeks enforcement of its order determining that Petitioner engaged in various unfair labor practices.

The Board found that, pending resolution of Company challenges to ballots cast in a representation election, the Company unlawfully refused to rehire two employees whose ballots had been challenged on the ground that they lacked a reasonable expectation of reemployment; that following certification of the Union as collective bargaining representative, the Company refused to recognize and bargain with the Union; that the unit employees went out on strike to protest the Company’s unlawful refusal to bargain; that following the unfair labor practice strikers’ unconditional offer to return to work, the Company unlawfully refused to reinstate four strikers; that the Company unilaterally granted wage increases after the Union had been certified as bargaining representative; and the Company interfered with strikers’ Section 7 rights by threatening strikers with criminal prosecution and by informing reinstated strikers that they were to be regarded as new employees.

The Board’s order requires the Company to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from in any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Affirmatively, the order requires the Company to make whole Sterling and Burgess for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the Company’s unfair labor practices; to offer the four unfair labor practice strikers immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions and to make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the Company’s refusal to reinstate them; to bargain collectively with the Union upon request; and to post the usual notice.

Upon consideration of the record and the arguments made to this Court, we are of the opinion that the Board’s order should be enforced.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Petitioner Drug Research, Inc., seeks review of the Board’s order and the Board seeks enforcement of its order determining that Petitioner engaged in various unfair labor practices.

The Board found that, pending resolution of Company challenges to ballots cast in a representation election, the Company unlawfully refused to rehire two employees whose ballots had been challenged on the ground that they lacked a reasonable expectation of reemployment; that following certification of the Union as collective bargaining representative, the Company refused to recognize and bargain with the Union; that the unit employees went out on strike to protest the Company’s unlawful refusal to bargain; that following the unfair labor practice strikers’ unconditional offer to return to work, the Company unlawfully refused to reinstate four strikers; that the Company unilaterally granted wage increases after the Union had been certified as bargaining representative; and the Company interfered with strikers’ Section 7 rights by threatening strikers with criminal prosecution and by informing reinstated strikers that they were to be regarded as new employees.

The Board’s order requires the Company to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from in any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Affirmatively, the order requires the Company to make whole Sterling and Burgess for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the Company’s unfair labor practices; to offer the four unfair labor practice strikers immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions and to make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the Company’s refusal to reinstate them; to bargain collectively with the Union upon request; and to post the usual notice.

Upon consideration of the record and the arguments made to this Court, we are of the opinion that the Board’s order should be enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 F.2d 806, 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2370, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 18177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bromine-division-drug-research-inc-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca6-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack