National Labor Relations Board v. Aero-Motive Manufacturing Company
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. AERO-MOTIVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondent
Opinion
ORDER This case is before the court upon the application of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order reported at 195 N.L.R.B. No. 133. Reference is made to the reported decision of the Board for a recitation of pertinent facts.
We agree that the respondent company was guilty of violating §§ 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act as found by the Board. The majority of the panel is of the view that this court must enforce, albeit reluctantly, the order that the company pay $100 plus interest to those who engaged in the strike, did not receive the $100 bonus and were recalled to work on or before March 9, 1972. The award to non-strikers was made after a new collective bargaining agreement had been signed. The Board has broad discretion in formulating orders remedying unfair labor practices. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 379 U.S. 203, 216 , 85 S.Ct. 398 , 13 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964); N. L. R. B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, 346-347 , 73 S.Ct. 287 , 97 L.Ed. 377 (1953); Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 313 U.S. 177, 194-195 , 61 S.Ct. 845 , 85 L.Ed. 1271 (1941). Further, there appears to be no practical alternative to the remedy prescribed by the Board.
It is ordered that enforcement be granted.
Because of the violence and threats to the personal safety and property of non-strikers which occurred while the strike was in progress, Chief Judge Phillips would deny enforcement of sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2 of the order of the Board, as amended April 17, 1972, but would enforce the remainder of the Board’s order.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(post-strike bonus to non-striking union employees)
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.