N.L.R.B. v. World Carpets of New York, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. N.L.R.B. v. World Carpets of New York, Inc.

    463 F.2d 57 (2d Cir. 1972)   Cited 9 times
    Denying enforcement of bargaining order where union representative was arrested for physical violence, combined with a campaign of threats and intimidations designed to force cessation of business

    This proceeding, dealing with alleged unfair labor practices with respect to a five man unit in 1966, is back again. In our previous opinion, 403 F.2d 408 (2 Cir. 1968), familiarity with which is assumed, we remanded for consideration whether the union with which World Carpets was directed to bargain had engaged in such misconduct as to disqualify it from being granted that relief under our decision in NLRB v. United Mineral Chemical Corp., 391 F.2d 829, 838-841 (2 Cir. 1968), and, even if not, whether a bargaining order in this case would further the policies of the National Labor Relations Act. In the two and a quarter years between our remand and the Board's second decision, 188 N.L.R.B. No. 10 (Jan. 26, 1971), the criteria governing determination of the latter question — indeed, of the whole issue of respondent's refusal to bargain — were significantly altered by the Supreme Court's opinion in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969), and the three other cases decided therewith.

  2. Wheeler-Van Label Company v. N.L.R.B

    408 F.2d 613 (2d Cir. 1969)   Cited 15 times

    United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB, 333 F.2d 819, 822 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 910, 85 S.Ct. 893, 13 L.Ed.2d 796 (1965); see NLRB v. Pembeck Oil Corp., 404 F.2d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1968); cf. NLRB v. M M Oldsmobile, Inc., 377 F.2d 712, 716-717 (2d Cir. 1967). But cf. NLRB v. World Carpets of New York, Inc., 403 F.2d 408, 411 n. 3 (2d Cir. 1968). See also NLRB v. Bardahl Oil Co., 399 F.2d 365, 368-370 (8th Cir. 1968).

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Marion Rohr Corp.

    714 F.2d 228 (2d Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times
    Rejecting bargaining order in face of 35% turnover

    This preference reflects the important policy that employees not have union representation forced upon them when, by exercise of their free will, they might choose otherwise. See National Labor Relations Act § 7, 29 U.S.C. § 157; NLRB v. General Stencils, Inc., 472 F.2d 170, 175-76 n. 5 (2d Cir. 1972); NLRB v. World Carpets of New York, Inc., 403 F.2d 408, 412 (2d Cir. 1968). A bargaining order is justified only when the Board demonstrates that an election is unlikely to reflect the uncoerced preference of the bargaining unit.

  4. Prudential Insurance Company of Am. v. N.L.R.B

    412 F.2d 77 (2d Cir. 1969)   Cited 34 times
    Recognizing that bargaining obligation "extends to . . . the administration of [CBAs] already adopted"

    While we are told that this case represents a unique situation, other unions are not likely to find it so. The Board is thus involving itself and reviewing courts in a mass of new litigation which will add to the delays that have unfortunately marred its administration of a statute under which speed is particularly important. See, e.g., Bryant Chucking Grinder Co. v. NLRB, 389 F.2d 565, 572 (2 Cir. 1967) (dissenting opinion of Judge Anderson), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 908, 88 S.Ct. 2055, 20 L.Ed.2d 1366 (1968); NLRB v. World Carpets of New York, Inc., 403 F.2d 408 (2 Cir. 1968). Now that the Supreme Court has taken note of the mounting criticisms of the Board for failure to utilize the rule-making procedures of the APA, see NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. at 765, 89 S.Ct. at 1429 fn. 3 (plurality opinion of Mr. Justice Fortas), will not the Board, at long last, recognize the desirability of proceeding in that manner in a new field that cries for such treatment, rather than continue in the painful and time-consuming task of individual adjudication?