NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
BRADENTON COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, ALSO D/B/A SARASOTA COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by the record and that the Board's order was not too broad.
The respondent failed to meet and confer with the Union in an effort to reach a contract, which the Board found to be a violation of the National Labo…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cease And Desist Order Scope cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The record before the National Labor Relations Board fully supported the finding by the Board that the respondent did not carry out its duty “to meet and confer with the Union at reasonable times and intervals” in an effort to arrive at a contract. See NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co. (5 Cir. 1965) 339 F. 2d 829. Such failure warranted the Board’s finding a violation of Section 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act.
There is no merit in the respondent’s contention that the duty to bargain ceased when a subsequent decertification petition was filed. The Board concluded that the unfair labor practice had taken place long before the filing of such petition. We conclude that the record fully supports this finding.
Finally, we do not believe the order entered by the Board was too broad in requiring respondent to cease and desist from “in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.” This order does not have the defects contained in the order in NLRB v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426, 61 S.Ct. 693, 85 L.Ed. 930. Rather it falls within the language of the Court’s conclusion that it was appropriate to restrain the practice and “other like or related unlawful acts.” See 312 U.S. 426, 436, 61 S.Ct. 693, 700.
The Order will be enforced.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cameron Iron Works, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 464 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Express Publ'g Co., 312 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1941)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Exch. Parts Co., 339 F.2d 829 (5th Cir. 1965)