National Labor Relations Board v. Savoy Laundry, Inc.

Second Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Savoy Laundry, Inc.

368 F.2d 1000, 63 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2560, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4321

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 1966

DocketDocket 28119

StatusPublished

This text of 368 F.2d 1000 (National Labor Relations Board v. Savoy Laundry, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Savoy Laundry, Inc., 368 F.2d 1000, 63 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2560, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4321 (2d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board petitions under date of September 28, 1966, for the enforcement of its Amended Order herein dated July 28, 1964, based upon its Supplemental Decision of the same date. Respondent, Savoy Laundry, Inc., filed a Response to the Board’s petition wherein it alleged that a dispute existed between the Board and the Respondent as to back pay and therein consented to proceedings by the Board under 29 CFR 102.52 et seq. The Board thereafter moved to strike Respondent’s Response as not constituting a defense to the Board’s petition.

In the Board’s Supplemental Decision various factors which may enter into any back pay determination are set forth. In the absence of a disclosure of the relevant facts relating both to the employees’ situations and to any economic justification in terminating Respondent’s wholesale shirt division, a determination cannot be made at this stage as to the limiting effect, if any, on any back pay liability. We agree with the Board that “until these problems are explored in a compliance proceeding, * . * * it is premature to assume that this remedy provides unlimited back pay accrual” (Supp.Dec.). See N. L. R. B. v. Dazzo Products, Inc., 358 F.2d 136, 138 (2 Cir., 1966).

The Board’s petition for enforcement of its Amended Order is granted. The Board’s motion to strike Respondent’s Response is granted.

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

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board petitions under date of September 28, 1966, for the enforcement of its Amended Order herein dated July 28, 1964, based upon its Supplemental Decision of the same date. Respondent, Savoy Laundry, Inc., filed a Response to the Board’s petition wherein it alleged that a dispute existed between the Board and the Respondent as to back pay and therein consented to proceedings by the Board under 29 CFR 102.52 et seq. The Board thereafter moved to strike Respondent’s Response as not constituting a defense to the Board’s petition.

In the Board’s Supplemental Decision various factors which may enter into any back pay determination are set forth. In the absence of a disclosure of the relevant facts relating both to the employees’ situations and to any economic justification in terminating Respondent’s wholesale shirt division, a determination cannot be made at this stage as to the limiting effect, if any, on any back pay liability. We agree with the Board that “until these problems are explored in a compliance proceeding, * . * * it is premature to assume that this remedy provides unlimited back pay accrual” (Supp.Dec.). See N. L. R. B. v. Dazzo Products, Inc., 358 F.2d 136, 138 (2 Cir., 1966).

The Board’s petition for enforcement of its Amended Order is granted. The Board’s motion to strike Respondent’s Response is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 F.2d 1000, 63 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2560, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-savoy-laundry-inc-ca2-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack