International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. National Labor Relations Board

D.C. Circuit

International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. National Labor Relations Board

367 F.2d 333

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedSeptember 30, 1966

DocketNos. 19855, 19856

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 367 F.2d 333 (International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. National Labor Relations Board, 367 F.2d 333 (D.C. Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

These consolidated cases are before the court upon petition of the union to review certain portions of the orders issued by the National Labor Relations Board dismissing in part complaints issued against the General Electric Company. Petitioner raises various points, only one of which merits mention.

The Board, in No. 19,856, barred reopening of the question whether the June 1963 reprimand to employee Bailey was attributable to the employer’s anti-union bias, that question having been settled adversely to the union in the earlier proceeding (No. 19,855). In so doing the Board stated: “[W]e are, we believe, precluded” from re-evaluating the reprimand. If by this language the Board meant that it was required in the circumstances of this case to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel, it was wrong.

We are constrained to believe, however, that the Board here, in applying collateral estoppel, exercised its discretion in the circumstances of this case. On prior occasions, for example Monroe Feed Store, 112 N.L.R.B. 1336, 1338 (1955), the Board has clearly indicated its understanding that resort to collateral estoppel is governed by sound discretion. Since there was a basis in the record for the Board, exercising its sound discretion, to refuse to re-evaluate the reprimand, we affirm its action.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

These consolidated cases are before the court upon petition of the union to review certain portions of the orders issued by the National Labor Relations Board dismissing in part complaints issued against the General Electric Company. Petitioner raises various points, only one of which merits mention.

The Board, in No. 19,856, barred reopening of the question whether the June 1963 reprimand to employee Bailey was attributable to the employer’s anti-union bias, that question having been settled adversely to the union in the earlier proceeding (No. 19,855). In so doing the Board stated: “[W]e are, we believe, precluded” from re-evaluating the reprimand. If by this language the Board meant that it was required in the circumstances of this case to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel, it was wrong.

We are constrained to believe, however, that the Board here, in applying collateral estoppel, exercised its discretion in the circumstances of this case. On prior occasions, for example Monroe Feed Store, 112 N.L.R.B. 1336, 1338 (1955), the Board has clearly indicated its understanding that resort to collateral estoppel is governed by sound discretion. Since there was a basis in the record for the Board, exercising its sound discretion, to refuse to re-evaluate the reprimand, we affirm its action.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 F.2d 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-union-of-electrical-radio-machine-workers-v-national-cadc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack