National Labor Relations Board v. Boot-Ster Manufacturing Company, Inc.

Sixth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Boot-Ster Manufacturing Company, Inc.

361 F.2d 325, 62 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2343, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6002

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 27, 1966

Docket16515_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 361 F.2d 325 (National Labor Relations Board v. Boot-Ster Manufacturing Company, Inc.) 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

National Labor Relations Board v. Boot-Ster Manufacturing Company, Inc., 361 F.2d 325, 62 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2343, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6002 (6th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board, having found violations of Section 8(a) (1), 61 Stat. 140 (1947), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1) (1964), and Section 8(a) (5), 61 Stat. 141 (1947), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (5) (1964), of the National Labor Relations Act on the part of respondent, seeks enforcement of its order requiring respondent to cease and desist from unfair labor practices and to bargain with the union.

All of the basic issues argued to this court on this appeal have been recently considered and decided in N. L. R. B. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750 (C.A.6, 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 830, 86 S.Ct. 69, 15 L.Ed.2d 74 (1965), and N. L. R. B. v. Cumberland Shoe Corp., 351 F.2d 917 (C.A.6, 1965).

Respondent, however, argues that in the instant case most of respondent’s coercive practices preceded the union’s request to bargain, while in Cumberland the unfair labor practices followed the request to bargain.

We do not consider this a meaningful distinction on this record. Taking the record as a whole, there was evidence from which the NLRB could have found that respondent sought by unlawful coercion to change the choice of its employees as to their bargaining agent and succeeded in doing so. In such a situation an order to bargain may be “strong medicine” but we believe it to be no stronger than is authorized by the statute. Franks Bros. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 321 U.S. 702, 64 S.Ct. 817, 88 L.Ed. 1020 (1944); N. L. R. B. v. Consolidated Ma *326 chine Tool Corp., 163 F.2d 376 (C.A.2, 1947), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 824, 68 S.Ct. 164, 92 L.Ed. 399 (1947), modification denied, 167 F.2d 470 (C.A.2, 1948); Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 87 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 185 F.2d 732 (C.A.D.C.1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 914, 71 S.Ct. 734, 95 L.Ed. 1350 (1951).

Enforcement of the NLRB order is granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board, having found violations of Section 8(a) (1), 61 Stat. 140 (1947), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1) (1964), and Section 8(a) (5), 61 Stat. 141 (1947), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (5) (1964), of the National Labor Relations Act on the part of respondent, seeks enforcement of its order requiring respondent to cease and desist from unfair labor practices and to bargain with the union.

All of the basic issues argued to this court on this appeal have been recently considered and decided in N. L. R. B. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750 (C.A.6, 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 830, 86 S.Ct. 69, 15 L.Ed.2d 74 (1965), and N. L. R. B. v. Cumberland Shoe Corp., 351 F.2d 917 (C.A.6, 1965).

Respondent, however, argues that in the instant case most of respondent’s coercive practices preceded the union’s request to bargain, while in Cumberland the unfair labor practices followed the request to bargain.

We do not consider this a meaningful distinction on this record. Taking the record as a whole, there was evidence from which the NLRB could have found that respondent sought by unlawful coercion to change the choice of its employees as to their bargaining agent and succeeded in doing so. In such a situation an order to bargain may be “strong medicine” but we believe it to be no stronger than is authorized by the statute. Franks Bros. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 321 U.S. 702, 64 S.Ct. 817, 88 L.Ed. 1020 (1944); N. L. R. B. v. Consolidated Ma *326 chine Tool Corp., 163 F.2d 376 (C.A.2, 1947), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 824, 68 S.Ct. 164, 92 L.Ed. 399 (1947), modification denied, 167 F.2d 470 (C.A.2, 1948); Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 87 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 185 F.2d 732 (C.A.D.C.1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 914, 71 S.Ct. 734, 95 L.Ed. 1350 (1951).

Enforcement of the NLRB order is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 F.2d 325, 62 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2343, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-boot-ster-manufacturing-company-inc-ca6-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack