N.L.R.B. v. Rexair, Inc.

14 Citing cases

  1. Southern Moldings, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    715 F.2d 1069 (6th Cir. 1983)   Cited 5 times

    The company, however, contends that the bargaining order is inappropriate because the Board has not stated specifically why a bargaining order is necessary in this case, and because it did not consider the effect of employee turnover on the chances for a fair election which would more accurately gauge the sentiments of the present bargaining unit. The specificity requirement was recently reiterated in NLRB v. Rexair, Inc., 646 F.2d 249 (6th Cir. 1981). There the court stated that bargaining orders have not been enforced when "the Board made no findings or detailed analysis as to the residual impact . . ., or the likelihood of recurrence, of any of the unfair labor practices, or when they are based on conclusory statements unsupported by sufficient facts."

  2. National Labor Rel. Board v. Kentucky May Coal

    89 F.3d 1235 (6th Cir. 1996)   Cited 33 times

    This court typically considers other criteria as well. For example, the Board must establish that the bargaining order is the "only satisfactory remedy." Indiana Cal-Pro, Inc., 863 F.2d at 1301 (quoting N.L.R.B. v. Rexair, Inc., 646 F.2d 249, 251 (6th Cir. 1981)). The Board must also examine "the present effects of past coercive unfair labor practices or present coercive unfair labor practices."

  3. Indiana Cal-Pro, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    863 F.2d 1292 (6th Cir. 1988)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that the NLRB possessed substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that a supervisor violated § 158 when he told employees that he heard from ownership that unionization would lead to the owners shutting down the plant

    We note, however, that "the Board's determination is not immune from review . . . [and] we must look at the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the bargaining order." Automated Business Sys., 497 F.2d at 272; see also NLRB v. Rexair, Inc., 646 F.2d 249, 250 (6th Cir. 1981). We have held that a bargaining order is proper as a remedy for section 8(a)(1) violations where essentially three conditions occur:

  4. Exchange Bank v. N.L.R.B

    732 F.2d 60 (6th Cir. 1984)   Cited 3 times

    Because the bargaining order is an extraordinary remedy, we have scrutinized very closely the Board's decision to impose it without holding a new election. See, e.g., NLRB v. Rexair, Inc., 646 F.2d 249 (6th Cir. 1981); Donn Products, Inc. v. NLRB, 613 F.2d 162 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 906, 100 S.Ct. 2988, 64 L.Ed.2d 855 (1980). Thus, bargaining orders have not been enforced when "[t]he Board made no findings or detailed analysis as to the residual impact . . . or the likelihood of recurrence, of any of the unfair labor practices," or when they are "based on conclusory statements unsupported by sufficient facts."

  5. G.E.S., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    697 F.2d 157 (6th Cir. 1983)   Cited 2 times

    "I am of the opinion that the possibility of erasing the effects of the Company's unfair labor practices and insuring a fair election by the use of the traditional remedy of a cease-and-desist order is slight, and that in this case the employees sentiment expressed through the authorization cards obtained by the Union would, on balance, be better protected by a bargaining order . . . ." N.L.R.B. v. Rexair, Inc., 646 F.2d 249, 250 (6th Cir. 1981). The Board has failed to support its conclusion that a bargaining order is the only satisfactory remedy in the present case.

  6. V & S ProGalv, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    168 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 1999)   Cited 19 times
    Finding that a bargaining order "was the proper remedy where the Board found several violations of § 8 and, as such, the likelihood of ensuring a fair election was slight"

    That case added that such an order is not to be "routinely entered . . . In Renoir [ 646 F.2d 249, 251 (6th Cir. 1981)], we declined to enforce a bargaining order, noting that the Board `failed to support its conclusion that a bargaining order is the only satisfactory remedy.'" Id. at 1301 (emphasis added).

  7. APX INTERNATIONAL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELA. BD

    144 F.3d 995 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    The Board has not established "that a bargaining order is the `only satisfactory remedy.'" Indiana Cal-Pro, Inc. v. NLRB, 863 F.2d 1292, 1301 (6th Cir. 1988) (quoting NLRB v. Rexair, Inc., 646 F.2d 249, 251 (6th Cir. 1981)); see also NLRB v. Kentucky May Coal Co., 89 F.3d 1235 (6th Cir. 1996). We find the requirements of a NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), bargaining order not to be met under the circumstances of this case.

  8. National Labor Rel. v. Taylor Mach. Prods

    136 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses

    In the end, the Board must determine that a bargaining order is the "`only satisfactory remedy.'" Indiana Cal-Pro, Inc. v. NLRB, 863 F.2d 1292, 1301 (6th Cir. 1988) (quoting NLRB v. Rexair, Inc., 646 F.2d 249, 251 (6th Cir. 1981)). Although we review the Board's issuance of a bargaining order for an abuse of discretion, see Kentucky May Coal Co., Inc., 89 F.3d at 1243, we nevertheless apply close scrutiny to that decision.

  9. Be-Lo Stores v. N.L.R.B

    126 F.3d 268 (4th Cir. 1997)   Cited 21 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board did not properly analyze Gissel in reaching a determination that mandatory bargaining was an appropriate remedy

    N.L.R.B. v. So-Lo Foods, Inc., 985 F.2d 123, 126 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting Appletree Chevrolet I, 608 F.2d at 996). While we accord the Board respect as to its choice of remedies because of its presumed expertise, see So-Lo Foods, 985 F.2d at 126 (citing Gissel, 395 U.S. at 612 n. 32), we "exercise less deference" and require scrupulous specificity from the Board when it issues mandatory bargaining orders on the authority of NLRB v. Gissel Packing. See N.L.R.B. v. Rexair, Inc., 646 F.2d 249, 250 (6th Cir. 1981) (courts closely scrutinize the Board "when it has imposed the very strong remedy of issuing a bargaining order without holding a new election"). A Gissel order "is not a snake-oil cure for whatever ails the workplace; it is an extreme remedy that must be applied with commensurate care."

  10. DTR Industries, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    39 F.3d 106 (6th Cir. 1994)   Cited 17 times
    In DTR I, the predictions made were about possible lost business in the face of unionization, contained in a letter from the employer's president to its employees shortly before a union election.

    See also Avecor, Inc. v. NLRB, 931 F.2d 924, 938 (D.C. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 912, 116 L.Ed.2d 812 (1992). Similarly, in NLRB v. Rexair, Inc., 646 F.2d 249 (6th Cir. 1981), we refused to enforce a bargaining order issued after the union had obtained a card majority, but had lost the election. There, the Board's order offered only the most summary boilerplate rationale for its order: