NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
C & W LEKTRA BAT CO., 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 order against C & W Lektra Bat Company is supported by substantial evidence and must be enforced.
During collective bargaining, the Company and Union agreed on a three-year contract after initial disputes. The Company refused to execute the agreeme…
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 Substantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the court on the application of the National Labor Relations Board for the enforcement of its order issued against C & W Lektra Bat Company on April 3, 1974.
During negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement the Company insisted on a one year contract, while the Union insisted on a three year contract. The Union further stated that, in accordance with its policy, the contract would be submitted to the members for ratification. The Company met the three year demand, thus satisfying all items of mandatory bargaining. The Union decided against submitting the agreement to its members, but the Company refused to execute the agreement unless and until the Union complied with its original plan to submit the plan for ratification.
The Board held that the Company violated § 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (5), by refusing to execute the collective bargaining agreement. 209 N.L.R.B. No. 165, (April 3, 1974).
Upon consideration, the court concludes that the order of the Board is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, and that enforcement is required by the decisions of this court in Houchens Market of Elizabethtown, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 375 F. 2d 208 (6th Cir. 1967) and N. L. R. B. v. Big Run Coal & Clay Co., 385 F. 2d 788 (6th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 824, 89 S.Ct. 83, 21 L.Ed.2d 95 (1968).
Accordingly, it is ordered that enforcement be granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cheese Barn, Inc., 558 F.2d 526 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Seneca Env't Prods., 646 F.2d 1170 (6th Cir. 1981)
Authorities Cited
- Houchens Mkt. OF Elizabethtown, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 375 F.2d 208 (6th Cir. 1967)
- Metheany v. United States, 393 U.S. 824 (U.S. 1968)
- Carolina Pipeline Co. v. York Cnty. Natural Gas Auth., 393 U.S. 824 (U.S. 1968)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. BIG RUN Coal & Clay Co., 385 F.2d 788 (6th Cir. 1967)