Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Aero-motive Manufacturing Company, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 475 F.2d 27
Argued Jan. 29, 1973.Decided Feb. 8, 1973
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Peter G. Nash, Patrick Hardin, Alan D. Cirker, Charles N. Steele, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Jerome H. Brooks, Director, Region 7, NLRB, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.
Darrel D. Jacobs, Michael F. Ward (Huston & Jacobs), Kalamazoo, Mich., for respondent.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and CELEBREZZE and McCREE, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This case is before the court upon the application of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order reported at 195 N.L.R.B. No. 133. Reference is made to the reported decision of the Board for a recitation of pertinent facts.
We agree that the respondent company was guilty of violating Secs. 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act as found by the Board. The majority of the panel is of the view that this court must enforce, albeit reluctantly, the order that the company pay $100 plus interest to those who engaged in the strike, did not receive the $100 bonus and were recalled to work on or before March 9, 1972. The award to non-strikers was made after a new collective bargaining agreement had been signed. The Board has broad discretion in formulating orders remedying unfair labor practices. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 379 U.S. 203, 216, 85 S.Ct. 398, 13 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964); N. L. R. B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, 346-347, 73 S.Ct. 287, 97 L.Ed. 377 (1953); Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 313 U.S. 177, 194-195, 61 S.Ct. 845, 85 L.Ed. 1271 (1941). Further, there appears to be no practical alternative to the remedy prescribed by the Board.
It is ordered that enforcement be granted.
Because of the violence and threats to the personal safety and property of non-strikers which occurred while the strike was in progress, Chief Judge Phillips would deny enforcement of subparagraph (a) of paragraph 2 of the order of the Board, as amended April 17, 1972, but would enforce the remainder of the Board's order.