National Labor Relations Board v. Dayton Motels, Inc., D/B/A Holiday Inn of Dayton

525 F.2d 476
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 26, 1976
Docket75--1167
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 525 F.2d 476 (National Labor Relations Board v. Dayton Motels, Inc., D/B/A Holiday Inn of Dayton) 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. Dayton Motels, Inc., D/B/A Holiday Inn of Dayton, 525 F.2d 476 (6th Cir. 1976).

Opinions

[477]*477PER CURIAM.

This is the second petition for enforcement and cross-petition to review filed in this National Labor Relations Board proceeding. In the first case this court remanded the proceeding for the Board to take testimony upon the good faith doubt defense urged by the company as to the charge that it was in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5) (1970), because it refused to bargain with the union. The facts are set out in detail in NLRB v. Dayton Motels, Inc., 474 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1973).

On remand the Board reopened the record, took additional testimony on the good faith doubt issue, and then affirmed the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the administrative law judge, who had held that although the union’s original majority in 1967 was tainted by the prounion activities of a female supervisor, that conduct “in no way entered into respondent’s decision in June 1970 to withdraw recognition from the union and refuse to bargain with it.” The administrative law judge and the majority of the Board found, Chairman Miller dissenting, that the decision to refuse to bargain had been related to an antiunion petition circulated among the employees in September 1970, “a matter in which the Board found the respondent to be substantially involved, in violation of the Act, and which therefore it could not rely on to support its contention that it had valid grounds on which to doubt the union’s majority status.”

Finding substantial evidence on the whole record to support the findings and conclusions of the Board, enforcement of the bargaining order is 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)
525 F.2d 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-dayton-motels-inc-dba-holiday-inn-of-ca6-1976.