NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
SAVOY LAUNDRY, INC., RESPONDENT

2d Cir. | 1966-11-18
No. Docket 28119
368 F.2d 1000 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1966)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court granted the National Labor Relations Board's petition for enforcement of its Amended Order and granted the Board's motion to strike the Respondent's Response.


Facts & Procedural History

The National Labor Relations Board petitioned for enforcement of its Amended Order. The Respondent, Savoy Laundry, Inc., responded, alleging a dispute…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board petitions under date of September 28, 1966, for the enforcement of its Amended Order herein dated July 28, 1964, based upon its Supplemental Decision of the same date. Respondent, Savoy Laundry, Inc., filed a Response to the Board’s petition wherein it alleged that a dispute existed between the Board and the Respondent as to back pay and therein consented to proceedings by the Board under 29 CFR 102.52 et seq. The Board thereafter moved to strike Respondent’s Response as not constituting a defense to the Board’s petition.

In the Board’s Supplemental Decision various factors which may enter into any back pay determination are set forth. In the absence of a disclosure of the relevant facts relating both to the employees’ situations and to any economic justification in terminating Respondent’s wholesale shirt division, a determination cannot be made at this stage as to the limiting effect, if any, on any back pay liability. We agree with the Board that “until these problems are explored in a compliance proceeding, * . * * it is premature to assume that this remedy provides unlimited back pay accrual” (Supp.Dec.). See N. L. R. B. v. Dazzo Products, Inc., 358 F. 2d 136, 138 (2 Cir., 1966).

The Board’s petition for enforcement of its Amended Order is granted. The Board’s motion to strike Respondent’s Response is granted.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw