National Labor Relations Board, Kendall Company, Oakland Plant

480 F.2d 921, 83 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3068, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8693
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 19, 1973
Docket72-2016
StatusUnpublished

This text of 480 F.2d 921 (National Labor Relations Board, Kendall Company, Oakland Plant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
National Labor Relations Board, Kendall Company, Oakland Plant, 480 F.2d 921, 83 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3068, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8693 (4th Cir. 1973).

Opinion

480 F.2d 921

83 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3068, 71 Lab.Cas. P 13,844

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner
Kendall Company, Oakland Plant, Respondent.

No. 72-2016.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

July 19, 1973.

Before WINTER, FIELD and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

The Board petitions for enforcement of its order requiring the Company to cease and desist from violating Secs. 8(a)(5) and (1) and, affirmatively, to permit the union to make job studies at the Company's Oakland plant relevant and necessary to the processing of grievances. The violations of the Act were found to have occurred when the Company declined to permit the studies which were the subject of the affirmative relief aspect of the order.

The job studies sought to be made by the union were relevant and necessary to the processing of the grievances which flowed from the Company's decision to increase employee work loads and decrease the number of employees. The Company has failed to persuade us of any reason of substance why it would be burdensome, disruptive or unreasonable for the Company to permit the studies to be made. The concurrence of probable relevance and reasonable necessity, on the one hand, and the absence of proof of countervailing valid objection, on the other, require enforcement. See General Electric Co. v. NLRB, 414 F.2d 918 (4 Cir.1969) cert. den. 396 U.S. 1005 (1970).

Enforcement granted.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
480 F.2d 921, 83 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3068, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-kendall-company-oak-ca4-1973.