Cross Company v. National Labor Relations Board

Sixth Circuit

Cross Company v. National Labor Relations Board

288 F.2d 188, 48 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2004, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4803

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1961

Docket14237

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 F.2d 188 (Cross Company 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

Cross Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 288 F.2d 188, 48 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2004, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4803 (6th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On February 2, 1961, we decided in the above cause that a petition of the National Labor Relations Board to enforce its order should be denied and granted other relief to The Cross Company. On March 15, 1961, the Board petitioned for a rehearing, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in National Labor Relations Board v. Celanese Corporation, 81 S.Ct. 689, wherein the Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari followed by an order vacating a judgment of the Seventh Circuit, 279 F.2d 204, and remanding the case for consideration in the light of National Labor Relations Board v. Mattison Machine Works, 365 U.S. 123, 81 S.Ct. 434, 5 L.Ed.2d 455.

The facts in the Celanese and Mattison cases are importantly different from those in the Cross case, supra. We have in Cross not merely “a minor and unconfusing mistake in the employer’s corporate name” [365 U.S. 123, 81 S.Ct. 435] and the absence of any contrary showing by the employer nor the not too important dispute in Celanese as to whether employer or the union should be credited for certain fringe benefits, but material *189 untruths and misrepresentations made by the union, graphically presented, at a time when it was impossible for correction to be made, namely, the morning of the election.

There was no denial that the misstatements were made, no denial that they were false, and the defense of them as legitimate election propaganda by the bargaining agent at the time they were made establishes their importance as a contributing factor in determining the outcome of the election. In political elections, this is called a “roorback.” It is obvious that the purpose of the falsity was to unfairly control the result of the election.

We see nothing to be gained by granting the petition for rehearing and the petition is

Denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

On February 2, 1961, we decided in the above cause that a petition of the National Labor Relations Board to enforce its order should be denied and granted other relief to The Cross Company. On March 15, 1961, the Board petitioned for a rehearing, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in National Labor Relations Board v. Celanese Corporation, 81 S.Ct. 689, wherein the Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari followed by an order vacating a judgment of the Seventh Circuit, 279 F.2d 204, and remanding the case for consideration in the light of National Labor Relations Board v. Mattison Machine Works, 365 U.S. 123, 81 S.Ct. 434, 5 L.Ed.2d 455.

The facts in the Celanese and Mattison cases are importantly different from those in the Cross case, supra. We have in Cross not merely “a minor and unconfusing mistake in the employer’s corporate name” [365 U.S. 123, 81 S.Ct. 435] and the absence of any contrary showing by the employer nor the not too important dispute in Celanese as to whether employer or the union should be credited for certain fringe benefits, but material *189 untruths and misrepresentations made by the union, graphically presented, at a time when it was impossible for correction to be made, namely, the morning of the election.

There was no denial that the misstatements were made, no denial that they were false, and the defense of them as legitimate election propaganda by the bargaining agent at the time they were made establishes their importance as a contributing factor in determining the outcome of the election. In political elections, this is called a “roorback.” It is obvious that the purpose of the falsity was to unfairly control the result of the election.

We see nothing to be gained by granting the petition for rehearing and the petition is

Denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 F.2d 188, 48 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2004, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cross-company-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca6-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack