National Labor Relations Board v. Mead Foods, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Mead Foods, Inc.

353 F.2d 87, 60 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2523, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 3806

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 1965

Docket22013_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 353 F.2d 87 (National Labor Relations Board v. Mead Foods, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Mead Foods, Inc., 353 F.2d 87, 60 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2523, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 3806 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Respondent’s drivers, residing in parts of Texas and Oklahoma, chose a Texas local and an Oklahoma local to serve as their joint bargaining representative. Respondent refused to bargain because of the absence of express charter power in the locals to serve as a joint representative, and because of asserted practical difficulties which may arise from having to bargain with two locals rather than one. None of these difficulties have yet come into being because no bargaining has taken place.

The employees made their choice. The locals were certified as the joint representative. Respondent should have bargained. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. National Truck Rental Co., (1957) 99 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 239 F.2d 422; and N. L. R. B. v. Burnett Construction Company, (10 Cir. 1965) 350 F.2d 57.

The order will be enforced.

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

PER CURIAM.

Respondent’s drivers, residing in parts of Texas and Oklahoma, chose a Texas local and an Oklahoma local to serve as their joint bargaining representative. Respondent refused to bargain because of the absence of express charter power in the locals to serve as a joint representative, and because of asserted practical difficulties which may arise from having to bargain with two locals rather than one. None of these difficulties have yet come into being because no bargaining has taken place.

The employees made their choice. The locals were certified as the joint representative. Respondent should have bargained. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. National Truck Rental Co., (1957) 99 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 239 F.2d 422; and N. L. R. B. v. Burnett Construction Company, (10 Cir. 1965) 350 F.2d 57.

The order will be enforced.

Gallenkamp Stores Co. Mercury Distributing Company Acme Quality Paints and F. & G. Merchandising v. National Labor Relations Board, and Retail Clerks Union Local 770, Retail Clerks International Association, Afl-Cio, Intervenor. K-Mart, a Division of S. S. Kresge Company v. National Labor Relations Board, and Retail Clerks Union Local 770, Retail Clerks International Association, Afl-Cio, Intervenor. Hollywood Hat Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, and Retail Clerks Union Local 770, Retail Clerks International Association, Afl-Cio, Intervenor

402 F.2d 525 (Ninth Circuit, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 F.2d 87, 60 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2523, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 3806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-mead-foods-inc-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack