TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. Custom Craft Manufacturing Company, a Division of U.S. Industries, Inc.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CUSTOM CRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Division of U. S. Industries, Inc., Respondent

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Custom Craft Mfg. Co., 493 F.2d 500 (6th Cir. 1974)
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
March 13, 1974
Docket
No. 73-1923
Judges
Weick, Edwards, Peck
Citations
493 F.2d 50085 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 27201974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9706

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its decision and order reported at 205 N.L.R.B. No. 111. In this order the Board found that the company violated § 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S.C. § 158(a)(5) and (1)(1970), by refusing to bargain with a union 1

which had previously been certified by the Board as exclusive bargaining representative. Previously the company and the union had stipulated to the holding of a consent election which the union won by 139 votes to 93. Subsequently the company filed objections to the election, claiming union misrepresentations, disruption, a power failure during the balloting, and improper appeals to religious bias by the union. The Regional Director’s investigation and report recommended that the objections be overruled and that the company’s request for a hearing be denied, and the Board in its decision and order followed this course.

It is clear that the record discloses a heated election campaign, with a good deal of strong propaganda on both sides. The principal complaint of the company seems to be that in a letter issued two days before the election, the union reported a rumor that the plant manager was secretly in favor of a union victory.

The plant manager himself had written or uttered some extremely strong antiunion propaganda in the period immediately prior to the election. Under these circumstances, we do not believe that, improper as the report of this rumor may have been, it could have materially affected the outcome of the election.

We also agree with the Board that the report of the Regional Director shows that the Board’s agent at the occurrence of the power failure took all necessary and appropriate steps to preserve the laboratory conditions for the election. Respondent concedes that it has refused *501 to bargain with the union, as required by the Board’s previous certification of it as bargaining representative.

Enforcement of the order of the Board is granted.

1

. Local No. 954, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC.

How later courts describe this case

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

1975: 119752026peak 1975 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. National Labor Relations Board v. Basic Wire Products, Inc.516 F.2d 261 (6th Cir. 1975)

Most recent

  1. National Labor Relations Board v. Basic Wire Products, Inc.516 F.2d 261 (6th Cir. 1975)

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