NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
WALLI'S SUPPER CLUB, INC., RESPONDENT

6th Cir. | 1970-07-08
No. 20088
427 F.2d 709 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1970)

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.


Holding

Enforcement of the NLRB order is denied for the present due to the commissary's closure, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.


Facts & Procedural History

The National Labor Relations Board sought enforcement of its order finding a commissary employee unit appropriate and the respondent employer guilty o…

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.


Opinion of the Court

This case is before the Court upon the application of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order reported at 174 N.L.R.B. No. 183.

The Board found that a unit composed of respondent’s commissary employees was an appropriate bargaining unit and that respondent violated § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the certified representative of the employees in the unit. The Board’s order requires respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, to bargain on request, and to post appropriate notices.

Respondent made no appearance before this Court except to notify the clerk that its commissary is no longer in existence.

The Court finds that the decision of the Board is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Because of the new situation created by the doubt as to whether the commissary is still in existence whose employees were held to constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, enforcement of the Board’s order is denied for the present. The case is remanded to the Board for further proceedings.

The costs of this proceeding are taxed against respondent. Rule 39(b), Fed. R.App.P.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw