TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Glomac Plastics, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, Afl-Cio

GLOMAC PLASTICS, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Intervenor

Glomac Plastics, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., & Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union, Afl-Cio, 600 F.2d 3 (2d Cir. 1979)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 16, 1979
Docket
Nos. 102, 443, Dockets 78-4046, 78-4058
Judges
Feinberg, Mulligan, Newman, Per Curiam
Citations
600 F.2d 3101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 24561979 U.S. App. LEXIS 14654
Cited by 9 2 descriptions by later courtsOriginal from court

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

On January 24, 1979, upon the Board’s cross-petition to enforce a bargaining order, we upheld the Board’s finding of a refusal to bargain in good faith and approved, on the existing record, its remedy of an extension of the Union’s initial certification year for another full year from the date the Company commences good faith bargaining. However, concerned over the extraordinary lapse of time since the events in question, a delay largely attributable to the Board, we withheld entry of judgment enforcing the Board’s order for 60 days and remanded the case to the Board “for such further consideration and any revision of the remedy as it deems advisable.” By decision dated March 22, 1979, the Board has determined that the bargaining remedy remains appropriate.

In the proceedings upon remand, the Board denied the Company’s motion to reopen the record to receive evidence of events the Company contended rendered the order no longer appropriate. The Board erroneously concluded that this Court had expressly held that such evidence could not be considered. What this Court held was that such evidence, not then in the record, could not be considered by this Court, but nothing precluded its consideration by the Board. Indeed, the remand for further consideration implicitly entitled the Board to reopen the record for further evidence.

Cf. Spitzer Akron, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 504 F.2d 28, 29 (6th Cir. 1974). However, there is no need for a further remand, since the Board, in reaffirming the remedy, assumed the accuracy of the Company’s principal claims of substantial employee turnover in the unit and/or abandonment of the unit by the Union. We assume the Board did not decline to exercise its discretion concerning the remedy, but simply concluded that under the circumstances of this case, the remedy was thought appropriate even if the Company’s evidence of intervening circumstances were accepted as an offer of proof.

In these circumstances, judgment may enter enforcing the Board’s order.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →
1980: 21982: 21983: 11988: 21998: 219802026peak 1980 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. National Labor Relations Board v. Koenig Iron Works, Inc.681 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1982)
  2. National Labor Relations Board v. Koenig Iron Works, Inc. Master Iron Craft Corp. Roman Iron Works, Inc. Mohawk Steel Fabricators, Inc. Melto Metal Products Co., Inc. Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural Iron Works, Inc. Paxton Metalcraft Corp681 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1982)
  3. Bryant & Stratton Business Institute, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board140 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998)
  4. National Labor Relations Board v. Star Color Plate Service843 F.2d 1507 (2d Cir. 1988)
  5. Bryant & Stratton Business Institute, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw . International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw v. National Labor Relations Board, Bryant & Stratton Business Institute, Inc.140 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998)
  6. School Committee of Newton v. Labor Relations Comm.447 N.E.2d 1201 (Mass. 1983)

Most recent

  1. Bryant & Stratton Business Institute, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw . International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw v. National Labor Relations Board, Bryant & Stratton Business Institute, Inc.140 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998)
  2. Bryant & Stratton Business Institute, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board140 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998)
  3. National Labor Relations Board v. Koenig Iron Works, Inc. And Roman Iron Works, Inc.856 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1988)
  4. National Labor Relations Board v. Star Color Plate Service843 F.2d 1507 (2d Cir. 1988)
  5. School Committee of Newton v. Labor Relations Comm.447 N.E.2d 1201 (Mass. 1983)
  6. National Labor Relations Board v. Koenig Iron Works, Inc. Master Iron Craft Corp. Roman Iron Works, Inc. Mohawk Steel Fabricators, Inc. Melto Metal Products Co., Inc. Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural Iron Works, Inc. Paxton Metalcraft Corp681 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1982)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Spitzer Akron, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 504 F.2d 28 (6th Cir. 1974) 2

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