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
Pointe Enterprises, Inc., Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 568 F.2d 6
Dec. 22, 1977
R. Ian Hunter, James D. Osmer, Matheson, Bieneman, Parr, Schuler & Ewald, C. John Holmquist, Jr., Bloomfield Hills, Mich., for petitioner.
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Bernard Gottfried, Director, Region 7, N. L. R. B., Detroit, Mich., for respondent.
Before LIVELY and KEITH, Circuit Judges, and NEESE, District Judge.*
ORDER
This case is before the court on petition of Pointe Enterprises, Inc., the employer, to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued on April 9, 1976 based on a finding that the employer had violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Labor Act by refusing to bargain with a duly certified union. The Board's order is reported at 223 NLRB No. 93 and is based in part on findings made in a representation proceeding under Section 9 of the Act. See 216 NLRB No. 131. The issue is whether the "laboratory conditions" were destroyed by assertions by the union during the campaign relating to its intentions in the event it won the election. The Board, with one member dissenting, found in the representation proceeding that the statements made by the union were not misrepresentations within the meaning of Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 221 (1962).
In this court the employer contends that the case is not controlled by Hollywood Ceramics, supra, since the nature of the statements made by the union were such as to constitute an abuse of Board process. Though the facts in this case are somewhat different from those in any case cited by the parties, upon consideration of the entire record together with the briefs and oral arguments of counsel the court concludes that the Board did not err in its treatment of the issues in the case.
The order of the Board is enforced.