Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Co. v. Potter

Fifth Circuit

Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Co. v. Potter

400 F.2d 897, 69 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2415

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 30, 1968

DocketNo. 25577

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 400 F.2d 897 (Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Co. v. Potter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Co. v. Potter, 400 F.2d 897, 69 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2415 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 160(j), the district court granted a temporary injunction ordering Firestone to resume collective bargaining with the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 4-23. On appeal to this court, Firestone’s primary contention is that the trial court erred in granting the injunction in that the evidence did not demonstrate that injunctive relief was necessary to prevent the frustration of the remedial purposes of the Act. See NLRB v. Heck’s Inc., 4th Cir. 1968, 390 F.2d 655; NLRB v. Aerovox, 4th [898]*898Cir. 1967, 389 F.2d 475; Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Meter, 8th Cir. 1967, 385 F.2d 265; Angle v. Sacks, 10th Cir. 1967, 382 F.2d 655.

At the conclusion of oral argument before this court, the parties stipulated that subsequent to the issuance of the injunction and the taking of this appeal the strike was settled and a collective bargaining contract covering wages, hours, and other conditions of employment was negotiated and executed pursuant to the trial court’s injunctive order.

In our judgment the trial court should reconsider the necessity and appropriateness of injunctive relief in the light of these changed conditions. See McLeod v. General Electric Co. (1967), 385 U.S. 533, 87 S.Ct. 637, 17 L.Ed.2d 588. To permit such reconsideration this cause is remanded to the district court.

Remanded.

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

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 160(j), the district court granted a temporary injunction ordering Firestone to resume collective bargaining with the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 4-23. On appeal to this court, Firestone’s primary contention is that the trial court erred in granting the injunction in that the evidence did not demonstrate that injunctive relief was necessary to prevent the frustration of the remedial purposes of the Act. See NLRB v. Heck’s Inc., 4th Cir. 1968, 390 F.2d 655; NLRB v. Aerovox, 4th [898]*898Cir. 1967, 389 F.2d 475; Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Meter, 8th Cir. 1967, 385 F.2d 265; Angle v. Sacks, 10th Cir. 1967, 382 F.2d 655.

At the conclusion of oral argument before this court, the parties stipulated that subsequent to the issuance of the injunction and the taking of this appeal the strike was settled and a collective bargaining contract covering wages, hours, and other conditions of employment was negotiated and executed pursuant to the trial court’s injunctive order.

In our judgment the trial court should reconsider the necessity and appropriateness of injunctive relief in the light of these changed conditions. See McLeod v. General Electric Co. (1967), 385 U.S. 533, 87 S.Ct. 637, 17 L.Ed.2d 588. To permit such reconsideration this cause is remanded to the district court.

Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 F.2d 897, 69 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/firestone-synthetic-rubber-latex-co-v-potter-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack