National Labor Relations Board v. Essex Wire Corp.

Sixth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Essex Wire Corp.

496 F.2d 862

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 1972

DocketNo. 71-2080

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 496 F.2d 862 (National Labor Relations Board v. Essex Wire Corp.) 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. Essex Wire Corp., 496 F.2d 862 (6th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Board, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, found that the Company violated 8(a)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S. C. § 151 et seq., by threatening and coercive interrogation of its employees and by speeches on the part of management which threatened economic reprisals in the event of a vote for the Union.¹ While the evidence is in substantial conflict upon consideration of the record as a whole, we cannot say that there is not substantial evidence to support the finding as to Section 8(a) (1) violation.

[863]*863The Board in agreement with the Trial Examiner further found that the respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union upon request based upon a claimed majority represented by authorization cards.

Upon consideration of the record as a whole we are not satisfied that the facts presented are sufficient to justify the bargaining order which the Board seeks to enforce. We recognize the impact of N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969), but do not find the rationale of that decision applicable to the facts of this ease. Rather the language of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in N.L.R.B. v. American Cable Systems, Inc., 427 F.2d 446, 449 (1970), cert. den., 400 U.S. 957, 91 S.Ct. 356, 27 L.Ed.2d 266, is more appropriate. In the present case the language of the Fifth Circuit, 427 F.2d 449, describes the reasoning of the Board in ordering bargaining as a “a litany, reciting conclusions by rote without factual explication.”

It is, therefore, ordered that enforcement be granted only as to the Section 8(a)(1) violation, and is denied as to the alleged Section 8(a)(5) violation.

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

ORDER

The Board, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, found that the Company violated 8(a)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S. C. § 151 et seq., by threatening and coercive interrogation of its employees and by speeches on the part of management which threatened economic reprisals in the event of a vote for the Union.¹ While the evidence is in substantial conflict upon consideration of the record as a whole, we cannot say that there is not substantial evidence to support the finding as to Section 8(a) (1) violation.

[863]*863The Board in agreement with the Trial Examiner further found that the respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union upon request based upon a claimed majority represented by authorization cards.

Upon consideration of the record as a whole we are not satisfied that the facts presented are sufficient to justify the bargaining order which the Board seeks to enforce. We recognize the impact of N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969), but do not find the rationale of that decision applicable to the facts of this ease. Rather the language of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in N.L.R.B. v. American Cable Systems, Inc., 427 F.2d 446, 449 (1970), cert. den., 400 U.S. 957, 91 S.Ct. 356, 27 L.Ed.2d 266, is more appropriate. In the present case the language of the Fifth Circuit, 427 F.2d 449, describes the reasoning of the Board in ordering bargaining as a “a litany, reciting conclusions by rote without factual explication.”

It is, therefore, ordered that enforcement be granted only as to the Section 8(a)(1) violation, and is denied as to the alleged Section 8(a)(5) violation.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 F.2d 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-essex-wire-corp-ca6-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack