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. Garrard Convalescent Home, Inc., Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 548 F.2d 134
Dec. 15, 1976
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Joseph A. Oertel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Patrick Hardin, Paul J. Spielberg, John F. Depenbrock, Jr., John S. Irving, Jr., Emil C. Farkas, Director, Region 9, N.L.R.B., Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner.
Jonas B. Katz, Brown & Gettler, David Reichert, Paul H. Tobias, Goldman, Cole & Putnick, Michael S. Duty, Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and EDWARDS and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Under date of January 23, 1974, this court granted enforcement of the order of the National Labor Relations Board reported at 199 N.L.R.B. 711. N.L.R.B. v. Convalescent Home, Inc., 489 F.2d 736 (6th Cir. 1974). The enforced order directed backpay in favor of certain employees who were found to have been unlawfully discharged.
Thereafter, the Board entered a supplemental backpay order, reported at 220 N.L.R.B. 77, prescribing the amounts to be paid to Lula Hurry and Ethel Smith. The Board has applied for enforcement of its supplemental backpay order. The respondent company resists enforcement on the ground that the two employees failed to exercise reasonable diligence in seeking employment.
Upon consideration, the court concludes that the supplemental order of the Board is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the supplemental decision of the Board be and hereby is enforced.
No costs are taxed. Each party will bear its own costs in this court.