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. Industry Products Company, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 673 F.2d 164
March 22, 1982
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Edward Dorsey, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Thomas O. Magan, Kahn, Dees, Donovan & Kahn, Evansville, Ind., for respondent.
Before LIVELY and KEITH, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit judge.
ORDER
This case is before the court on petition of the National Labor Relations Board to enforce its order, reported at 251 NLRB No. 183 (1980), in which it found that the company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by various actions and threats during a period of union organization and violated Section 8(a)(3) by discharging four employees for union support. The respondent contends that one of the discharged employees, Lorelei Taylor, was a supervisor at the time of her discharge and that she was not entitled to protection of the Act. The respondent also contends that Taylor obtained 13 of the authorization cards and that if these were voided because of her supervisory status the union would never have had majority support. The respondent also contends that the Board abused its discretion by ordering it to recognize and bargain with the union rather than ordering a re-run election.
Upon consideration of the briefs and oral arguments of counsel together with the record on appeal this court concludes that the findings of the Board that the respondent committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and that Lorelei Taylor was an employee rather than a supervisor are supported by substantial evidence. The court also concludes that the Board did not abuse its discretion in ordering the respondent to recognize and bargain with the union. N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969).
The order of the Board is enforced.