National Labor Relations Board v. Model Mill Co., Inc

Sixth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Model Mill Co., Inc

210 F.2d 829, 33 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2629, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3861

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1954

Docket11968_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 210 F.2d 829 (National Labor Relations Board v. Model Mill Co., 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. Model Mill Co., Inc, 210 F.2d 829, 33 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2629, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3861 (6th Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause was heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties;

And the Court being of the opinion that the findings of the Board that the respondent had interfered with and restrained its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by interrogating them concerning their union activities and threatening them with economic reprisals, N. L. R. B. v. Ford Bros., 6 Cir., 170 F.2d 735, 738; Atlas Underwear Co. v. N. L. R. B„ 6 Cir., 116 F.2d 1020, 1023; and that the respondent’s refusal to recog *830 nize and bargain with the Union after receiving its request to do so on January 10, 1952 was motivated not by any good faith doubt as to the Union’s majority in an appropriate unit, but by a desire to gain time in which to take action to dissipate the Union’s majority, Joy Silk Mills, Inc., v. N. L. R. B., 87 U.S.App. D.C. 360, 185 F.2d 732, 741, certiorari denied 341 U.S. 914, 71 S.Ct. 734, 95 L. Ed. 1350; N. L. R. B. v. Kobritz, 1 Cir., 193 F.2d 8, 14; N. L. R. B. v. Wm. Tehel Bottling Co., 8 Cir., 129 F.2d 250, 254-255; are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole;

And being also of the opinion that the application by the Union for Board certification did not as a matter of law excuse respondent’s refusal to bargain with the Union; N. L. R. B. v. Inter-City Advertising Co., 4 Cir., 190 F.2d 420, 421; N. L. R. B. v. W. T. Grant Co., 9 Cir., 199 F.2d 711, 712; and that the Union’s participation in the election without filing a complaint or withdrawing its representation proceeding did not constitute a waiver of the unfair labor practices previously committed and render improper the action of the Board in setting aside the election, N. L. R. B. v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 9 Cir., 204 F.2d 79, 86, affirmed 346 U.S. 482, 74 S.Ct. 214; Great Atlantic & Pacific Co., 101 N. L. R. B. No. 210; Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 202-203, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1760, 91 L.Ed. 1995; Local Union No. 12 v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 189 F.2d 1, 5, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 868, 72 S.Ct. 109, 96 L.Ed. 653.

It is ordered that the Board’s Order of April 3, 1953 be enforced.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause was heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties;

And the Court being of the opinion that the findings of the Board that the respondent had interfered with and restrained its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by interrogating them concerning their union activities and threatening them with economic reprisals, N. L. R. B. v. Ford Bros., 6 Cir., 170 F.2d 735, 738; Atlas Underwear Co. v. N. L. R. B„ 6 Cir., 116 F.2d 1020, 1023; and that the respondent’s refusal to recog *830 nize and bargain with the Union after receiving its request to do so on January 10, 1952 was motivated not by any good faith doubt as to the Union’s majority in an appropriate unit, but by a desire to gain time in which to take action to dissipate the Union’s majority, Joy Silk Mills, Inc., v. N. L. R. B., 87 U.S.App. D.C. 360, 185 F.2d 732, 741, certiorari denied 341 U.S. 914, 71 S.Ct. 734, 95 L. Ed. 1350; N. L. R. B. v. Kobritz, 1 Cir., 193 F.2d 8, 14; N. L. R. B. v. Wm. Tehel Bottling Co., 8 Cir., 129 F.2d 250, 254-255; are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole;

And being also of the opinion that the application by the Union for Board certification did not as a matter of law excuse respondent’s refusal to bargain with the Union; N. L. R. B. v. Inter-City Advertising Co., 4 Cir., 190 F.2d 420, 421; N. L. R. B. v. W. T. Grant Co., 9 Cir., 199 F.2d 711, 712; and that the Union’s participation in the election without filing a complaint or withdrawing its representation proceeding did not constitute a waiver of the unfair labor practices previously committed and render improper the action of the Board in setting aside the election, N. L. R. B. v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 9 Cir., 204 F.2d 79, 86, affirmed 346 U.S. 482, 74 S.Ct. 214; Great Atlantic & Pacific Co., 101 N. L. R. B. No. 210; Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 202-203, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1760, 91 L.Ed. 1995; Local Union No. 12 v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 189 F.2d 1, 5, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 868, 72 S.Ct. 109, 96 L.Ed. 653.

It is ordered that the Board’s Order of April 3, 1953 be enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 F.2d 829, 33 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2629, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-model-mill-co-inc-ca6-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack