TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hickman Garment Company v. National Labor Relations Board, and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Afl-Cio

HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Intervenor

Hickman Garment Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., & Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Am., Afl-Cio, 437 F.2d 956 (6th Cir. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 5, 1971
Docket
Nos. 20734, 20735
Judges
Phillips, Celebrezze, Peck
Citations
437 F.2d 95676 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 26861971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12015

Opinion

ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT.

These two cases are before the court on petitions filed by Hickman Garment Company to review the decisions and orders of the National Labor Relations Board reported at 184 N.L.R.B. No. 99 and 184 N.L.R.B. No. 103. The petitions of the Company were filed August 28, 1970. The Board has filed cross-applications for enforcement.

These are the second and third decisions of the Board holding Hickman Garment Company to be guilty of unfair labor practices. The decision and order reported at 172 N.L.R.B. No. 118 was enforced by this court. 6 Cir., 408 F.2d 379 .

The Company requested and was granted an extension of time to January 29, 1971, for the purpose of filing its brief. The brief has not yet been filed and now is in default under the rules of this court.

Upon consideration, it is ordered that the petitions for review be and hereby *957 are dismissed for failure of petitioner to comply with the rules of this court.

It is further ordered that the cross-applications of the Board are allowed in both cases and that the orders of the Board reported at 184 N.L.R.B. No. 99 and 184 N.L.R.B. No. 103 be and hereby are enforced.

The Board filed a petition for preliminary relief, praying the Company be ordered to bargain collectively with the Union pending disposition of the review and enforcement proceedings. This petition was set for oral argument on Thursday, February 4, 1971. Counsel for the Company failed to appear after due notice. In view of this order of enforcement, the Court finds it unnecessary to act on the petition for preliminary relief.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1974: 11975: 119742026peak 1974 · 1

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list