TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cooper Tire and Rubber Company v. National Labor Relations Board

COOPER TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent

Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 443 F.2d 338 (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
May 10, 1971
Docket
No. 20757
Judges
McCree, Brooks, McAllister
Citations
443 F.2d 33877 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 22361971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10297

Opinion — Per Curiam

ORDER PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Cooper Tire and Rubber Company, petitions to review and set aside an order of the respondent, National Labor Relations Board, and the Board cross-petitions for enforcement of its order. The order is reported at 185 N.L.R.B. 48 .

The Board found that the company violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) by suspending two employees for participating in protected activity. These suspensions lasted for four days. The Board also found the company in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act for promulgating and maintaining a company rule 1

prohibiting employees from distributing literature relating to Section 7 activity on its premises at any time.

Briefly stated, one of the employees was suspended because, in order to protest the manner in which the union was representing its employees, he drafted a petition which stated “We the people of Local 752 Feel that The Union officals [sic] Are Not Doing There [sic] Job.” The other employee was suspended because he circulated the petition and had nine other employees sign it. The Board found, however, that each of the employees signed the petition outside working areas and either before starting to work or during break periods.

We conclude from a consideration of the record as a whole that it contains substantial evidence supporting the findings of the Board that the company suspension of the two employees because of their activity in connection with the petition seeking change in the union leadership was without justification and violative of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act. There is also substantial evidence that the company violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by maintaining an overbroad rule prohibiting handbill distribution. See Republic Aviation Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 324 U.S. 793 , 65 S.Ct. 982 , 89 L. Ed. 1372 (1945); National Steel Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 415 F.2d 1231 (6th Cir. 1969).

We also agree with the Board that it did not lose jurisdiction of this proceeding because the dispute had been processed through contractual grievance procedure. See John Klann Moving and Trucking Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 411 F.2d 261 (6th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 833 , 90 S. Ct. 88 , 24 L.Ed.2d 84 .

The Board’s cross-petition for enforcement of its order should be granted.

It is so ordered.

1

. Tlie rule “The Distribution of handbills within the plant is prohibited.”

How later courts describe this case

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

1974: 11982: 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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 324 U.S. 793 (1945) 580
The John Klann Moving & Trucking Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 411 F.2d 261 (6th Cir. 1969) 16
Nat'l Steel Corp., Great Lakes Steel Div. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 415 F.2d 1231 (6th Cir. 1969) 9

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