TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Scovill Manufacturing Company, Schrader Division v. National Labor Relations Board

SCOVILL, MANUFACTURING COMPANY, SCHRADER DIVISION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent

Scovill Mfg. Co., Schrader Div. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 443 F.2d 358 (4th Cir. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 28, 1971
Docket
No. 15369
Judges
Sobeloff, Winter, Craven
Citations
443 F.2d 35877 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 23981971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9927

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Scovill Manufacturing Company seeks review of a bargaining order issued by the National Labor Relations Board after a determination that Scovill had unlawfully refused to bargain with the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers. At issue is the validity of a Board-supervised election in which the Union won the right to represent Scovill’s production and maintenance employees at its Wake Forest, North Carolina, plant. Scovill maintains that the election should have been set aside by the Board because the election atmosphere was tainted by Union misrepresentations of fact, physical and economic threats to Union opponents, and misconduct by the Board agent conducting the election.

We do not agree with these contentions. To the extent that factual misrepresentations were made, they either were minor and inconsequential or preceded the election date sufficiently to allow Scovill ample opportunity for rebuttal. The “threats” were perhaps as restrained as could be hoped for in a close representation election with firm partisans on each side. The Board agent’s conduct was unexceptionable in momentarily interrupting the election to re *359 trieve a missing page of the list of eligible voters. No irregularity resulted.

Scovill’s petition for review is dismissed; the Board’s cross-application for enforcement is granted.

How later courts describe this case

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

1976: 119762026peak 1976 · 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