National Labor Relations Board v. Custom Craft Manufacturing Company, a Division of U.S. Industries, Inc.

Sixth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Custom Craft Manufacturing Company, a Division of U.S. Industries, Inc.

493 F.2d 500, 85 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2720, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9706

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 1974

Docket73-1923

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 493 F.2d 500 (National Labor Relations Board v. Custom Craft Manufacturing Company, a Division of U.S. Industries, 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. Custom Craft Manufacturing Company, a Division of U.S. Industries, Inc., 493 F.2d 500, 85 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2720, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9706 (6th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its decision and order reported at 205 N.L.R.B. No. 111. In this order the Board found that the company violated § 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S.C. § 158(a)(5) and (1)(1970), by refusing to bargain with a union 1 which had previously been certified by the Board as exclusive bargaining representative. Previously the company and the union had stipulated to the holding of a consent election which the union won by 139 votes to 93. Subsequently the company filed objections to the election, claiming union misrepresentations, disruption, a power failure during the balloting, and improper appeals to religious bias by the union. The Regional Director’s investigation and report recommended that the objections be overruled and that the company’s request for a hearing be denied, and the Board in its decision and order followed this course.

It is clear that the record discloses a heated election campaign, with a good deal of strong propaganda on both sides. The principal complaint of the company seems to be that in a letter issued two days before the election, the union reported a rumor that the plant manager was secretly in favor of a union victory.

The plant manager himself had written or uttered some extremely strong antiunion propaganda in the period immediately prior to the election. Under these circumstances, we do not believe that, improper as the report of this rumor may have been, it could have materially affected the outcome of the election.

We also agree with the Board that the report of the Regional Director shows that the Board’s agent at the occurrence of the power failure took all necessary and appropriate steps to preserve the laboratory conditions for the election. Respondent concedes that it has refused *501 to bargain with the union, as required by the Board’s previous certification of it as bargaining representative.

Enforcement of the order of the Board is granted.

1

. Local No. 954, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC.

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

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its decision and order reported at 205 N.L.R.B. No. 111. In this order the Board found that the company violated § 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S.C. § 158(a)(5) and (1)(1970), by refusing to bargain with a union 1 which had previously been certified by the Board as exclusive bargaining representative. Previously the company and the union had stipulated to the holding of a consent election which the union won by 139 votes to 93. Subsequently the company filed objections to the election, claiming union misrepresentations, disruption, a power failure during the balloting, and improper appeals to religious bias by the union. The Regional Director’s investigation and report recommended that the objections be overruled and that the company’s request for a hearing be denied, and the Board in its decision and order followed this course.

It is clear that the record discloses a heated election campaign, with a good deal of strong propaganda on both sides. The principal complaint of the company seems to be that in a letter issued two days before the election, the union reported a rumor that the plant manager was secretly in favor of a union victory.

The plant manager himself had written or uttered some extremely strong antiunion propaganda in the period immediately prior to the election. Under these circumstances, we do not believe that, improper as the report of this rumor may have been, it could have materially affected the outcome of the election.

We also agree with the Board that the report of the Regional Director shows that the Board’s agent at the occurrence of the power failure took all necessary and appropriate steps to preserve the laboratory conditions for the election. Respondent concedes that it has refused *501 to bargain with the union, as required by the Board’s previous certification of it as bargaining representative.

Enforcement of the order of the Board is granted.

1

. Local No. 954, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 F.2d 500, 85 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2720, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-custom-craft-manufacturing-company-a-ca6-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack