National Labor Relations Board v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.

First Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.

396 F.2d 866

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedNovember 12, 1968

Docket6732

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 396 F.2d 866 (National Labor Relations Board v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First 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. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 396 F.2d 866 (1st Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter comes to us for enforcement of a Labor Board order following a supplemental decision after our remand, NLRB v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 1 Cir., 1966, 370 F.2d 54. We have considered the Board’s supplemental decision and order and cannot say that its position is unjustified. As we noted at the oral argument of this case, the criteria relied upon by the employer to separate the in-plant production employees from the various out-of-plant employees would, in turn, tend to require the latter to be themselves subdivided into more than one unit. Under the circumstances recited by the Board we are not prepared to overrule its selection of a single unit for the entire group. At the same time we are obliged to agree with the respondent that the Board’s effort to distinguish the factual situation here from that in E. H. Koester Bakery Co., 136 N.L.R.B. 1006 (1962) (where the Board refused to include truck drivers with the in-plant employees) is not very convincing. On balance, however, we are of the opinion that the Board has wide discretion in choosing among appropriate units and that minor factual differences may be sufficient to justify opposite results.

The order will be enforced.

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

PER CURIAM.

This matter comes to us for enforcement of a Labor Board order following a supplemental decision after our remand, NLRB v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 1 Cir., 1966, 370 F.2d 54. We have considered the Board’s supplemental decision and order and cannot say that its position is unjustified. As we noted at the oral argument of this case, the criteria relied upon by the employer to separate the in-plant production employees from the various out-of-plant employees would, in turn, tend to require the latter to be themselves subdivided into more than one unit. Under the circumstances recited by the Board we are not prepared to overrule its selection of a single unit for the entire group. At the same time we are obliged to agree with the respondent that the Board’s effort to distinguish the factual situation here from that in E. H. Koester Bakery Co., 136 N.L.R.B. 1006 (1962) (where the Board refused to include truck drivers with the in-plant employees) is not very convincing. On balance, however, we are of the opinion that the Board has wide discretion in choosing among appropriate units and that minor factual differences may be sufficient to justify opposite results.

The order will be enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

396 F.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-cumberland-farms-inc-ca1-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack