National Labor Relations Board v. Aerovox Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

Fourth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Aerovox Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

390 F.2d 653, 67 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2513, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8253

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 29, 1968

Docket11652

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 390 F.2d 653 (National Labor Relations Board v. Aerovox Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina) 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 v. Aerovox Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, 390 F.2d 653, 67 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2513, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8253 (4th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order of June 19, 1967, 165 NLRB No. 70. Finding Aerovox Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, in its electrical equipment plant there, at fault for not bargaining, the Board ordered it to bargain with Local Union No. 382, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. The company rested its refusal on the ground that the unit certified by the Board for IBEW’s representation was inappropriate.

Only production and maintenance employees, the company urges, should have been embraced by the Board, instead of complying with the union’s request for a unit composed of maintenance employees, which included maintenance shop employees, janitors and set-up men, who keep the production machinery in repair.

Although the employer’s preference would seem more logical, the Board’s determination cannot be rejected unless arbitrary or capricious. E. g. Packard Motor Car Co. v. N.L.R.B., 330 U.S. 485, 491, 67 S.Ct. 789, 91 L.Ed. 1040 (1947). Since we conclude that there is a rational basis for the unit designated here we cannot interfere with the Board’s judgment.

Nor can we set aside the summary judgment passed by the Board *654 at the union’s instance based on the evidence. In the absence of special circumstances not shown to exist here, the Board is entitled thus to expedite the case. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 161-162, 61 S.Ct. 908, 85 L.Ed. 1251 (1941). Since the company’s defenses to the unfair labor practice charge had previously been aired in the representation contest, the Board was justified in resolving the charge without another plenary hearing See Overnite Transportation Co. v. N.L.R.B., 4 Cir., 327 F.2d 36, 40 (1963).

Order enforced.

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

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order of June 19, 1967, 165 NLRB No. 70. Finding Aerovox Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, in its electrical equipment plant there, at fault for not bargaining, the Board ordered it to bargain with Local Union No. 382, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. The company rested its refusal on the ground that the unit certified by the Board for IBEW’s representation was inappropriate.

Only production and maintenance employees, the company urges, should have been embraced by the Board, instead of complying with the union’s request for a unit composed of maintenance employees, which included maintenance shop employees, janitors and set-up men, who keep the production machinery in repair.

Although the employer’s preference would seem more logical, the Board’s determination cannot be rejected unless arbitrary or capricious. E. g. Packard Motor Car Co. v. N.L.R.B., 330 U.S. 485, 491, 67 S.Ct. 789, 91 L.Ed. 1040 (1947). Since we conclude that there is a rational basis for the unit designated here we cannot interfere with the Board’s judgment.

Nor can we set aside the summary judgment passed by the Board *654 at the union’s instance based on the evidence. In the absence of special circumstances not shown to exist here, the Board is entitled thus to expedite the case. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 161-162, 61 S.Ct. 908, 85 L.Ed. 1251 (1941). Since the company’s defenses to the unfair labor practice charge had previously been aired in the representation contest, the Board was justified in resolving the charge without another plenary hearing See Overnite Transportation Co. v. N.L.R.B., 4 Cir., 327 F.2d 36, 40 (1963).

Order enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 F.2d 653, 67 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2513, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-aerovox-corporation-of-myrtle-beach-ca4-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack