HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT, AND AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, INTERVENOR
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 dismissed the company's petitions for review and granted the Board's cross-applications for enforcement of its orders.
Hickman Garment Company petitioned for review of two NLRB decisions finding it guilty of unfair labor practices. The company failed to file its brief …
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 Enforcement Of Nlrb Order cases and more on FLexlaw
These two cases are before the court on petitions filed by Hickman Garment Company to review the decisions and orders of the National Labor Relations Board reported at 184 N.L.R.B. No. 99 and 184 N.L.R.B. No. 103. The petitions of the Company were filed August 28, 1970. The Board has filed cross-applications for enforcement.
These are the second and third decisions of the Board holding Hickman Garment Company to be guilty of unfair labor practices. The decision and order reported at 172 N.L.R.B. No. 118 was enforced by this court. 6 Cir., 408 F. 2d 379.
The Company requested and was granted an extension of time to January 29, 1971, for the purpose of filing its brief. The brief has not yet been filed and now is in default under the rules of this court.
Upon consideration, it is ordered that the petitions for review be and hereby are dismissed for failure of petitioner to comply with the rules of this court.
It is further ordered that the cross-applications of the Board are allowed in both cases and that the orders of the Board reported at 184 N.L.R.B. No. 99 and 184 N.L.R.B. No. 103 be and hereby are enforced.
The Board filed a petition for preliminary relief, praying the Company be ordered to bargain collectively with the Union pending disposition of the review and enforcement proceedings. This petition was set for oral argument on Thursday, February 4, 1971. Counsel for the Company failed to appear after due notice. In view of this order of enforcement, the Court finds it unnecessary to act on the petition for preliminary relief.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ridgely Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 510 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir. 1975)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hickman Garment Co., 471 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1972)
-
Hickman Garment Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 497 F.2d 1339 (6th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Hickman Garment Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 408 F.2d 379 (6th Cir. 1969)