National Labor Relations Board v. Heck's, Inc.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. HECK’S, INC., Respondent
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
The National Labor Relations Board moved pursuant to § 10(e) of the Labor Act [ 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e)] for enforcement pendente lite of the Board’s orders directing Heck’s, Incorporated, to bargain in good faith, to cease and desist from continuing to commit unfair labor practices, to post appropriate notices, and to reinstate an employee.
1
To obtain temporary relief under § 10(e), the Board must establish reasonable cause to believe the act has been violated, and it must appear from the circumstances of the case that the remedial purposes of the act will be frustrated unless relief pendente lite is granted. NLRB v. Aerovox Corp., 389 F.2d 475 (4th Cir., Dec. 20, 1967). We conclude that the Board has not met this standard and deny its motion.
The charge that the company violated § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the act [29 U.S. C. § 158(a) (5) and (1)] by its refusal to recognize and bargain in good faith raises in part the same issues that were decided adversely to the Board in NLRB v. Heck’s Inc., 386 F.2d 317 (4th Cir., Oct. 12, 1967).
*656 The § 8(a) (1) charges involve interrogation of employees with regard to their union sympathy, threatened reprisals, and interference with employees in 1964 and 1965 in connection with the same organization campaign that led to the § 8(a) (5) and (1) charges. While the charges are not inseparable, they are closely connected and we believe that both issues should be considered together when this case is heard on its merits.
In denying the motion, we, of course, do not intimate an opinion on the merits. We simply hold that the Board has not shown the necessity for pendente lite relief.
1
. The Board’s orders are found in Heck’s, Inc., 166 NLRB 38 (June 30, 1967), and Heck’s, Inc., 166 NLRB 32 (June 28, 1967). During oral argument, the Board withdrew its motion for pendente lite reinstatement of the employee.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(§ 10(e) relief denied because Board's claim had already been decided adversely to it)
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw v. National Labor Relations Board, Ex-Cell-O Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
- Food Store Employees Union, Local No. 347 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board
- Food Store Employees Union, Local No. 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Heck's Incorporated, Food Store Employees, Union, Local 347, Etc.
- Food Store Employees Union, Local No. 347 v. National Labor Relations Board
- International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board
- Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Company v. Clifford W. Potter
Most recent
- Food Store Employees Union, Local No. 347 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board
- International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw v. National Labor Relations Board, Ex-Cell-O Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
- International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board
- Food Store Employees Union, Local No. 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Heck's Incorporated, Food Store Employees, Union, Local 347, Etc.
- Food Store Employees Union, Local No. 347 v. National Labor Relations Board
- Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Company v. Clifford W. Potter
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.