NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
AEROVOX CORPORATION OF MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA, 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 determination of an appropriate bargaining unit and its order to bargain were not arbitrary or capricious and were entitled to enforcement.
The National Labor Relations Board ordered Aerovox Corporation to bargain with a union, defining an appropriate bargaining unit that included maintena…
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 Summary Judgment In Administrative Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order of June 19, 1967, 165 NLRB No. 70. Finding Aerovox Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, in its electrical equipment plant there, at fault for not bargaining, the Board ordered it to bargain with Local Union No. 382, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. The company rested its refusal on the ground that the unit certified by the Board for IBEW’s representation was inappropriate.
Only production and maintenance employees, the company urges, should have been embraced by the Board, instead of complying with the union’s request for a unit composed of maintenance employees, which included maintenance shop employees, janitors and set-up men, who keep the production machinery in repair. Although the employer’s preference would seem more logical, the Board’s determination cannot be rejected unless arbitrary or capricious. E. g. Packard Motor Car Co. v. N.L.R.B., 330 U.S. 485, 491, 67 S.Ct. 789, 91 L.Ed. 1040 (1947). Since we conclude that there is a rational basis for the unit designated here we cannot interfere with the Board’s judgment.
Nor can we set aside the summary judgment passed by the Board at the union’s instance based on the evidence. In the absence of special circumstances not shown to exist here, the Board is entitled thus to expedite the case. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 161-162, 61 S.Ct. 908, 85 L.Ed. 1251 (1941). Since the company’s defenses to the unfair labor practice charge had previously been aired in the representation contest, the Board was justified in resolving the charge without another plenary hearing See Overnite Transportation Co. v. N.L.R.B., 4 Cir., 327 F. 2d 36, 40 (1963).
Order enforced.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Union Bros., Inc., 403 F.2d 883 (4th Cir. 1968)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Clement-Blythe Cos., 415 F.2d 78 (4th Cir. 1969)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Harry T. Campbell Sons' Corp., 407 F.2d 969 (4th Cir. 1969)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Packard Motor Car Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 330 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1947)
- Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 313 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1941)
- Overnite Transp. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 327 F.2d 36 (4th Cir. 1963)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Aerovox Corp. of Myrtle Beach, 389 F.2d 475 (4th Cir. 1967)