NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
NEWTOWN CORPORATION, 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 a company cannot disavow a collective-bargaining agreement due to a tie vote on ratification by the union membership.
The National Labor Relations Board sought to enforce an order requiring Newtown Corporation to sign a collective-bargaining agreement. The union's mem…
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
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us upon the application of the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 160(e), to enforce its order issued on July 16, 1986, and reported at 280 N.L.R.B. No. 38, against Newtown Corporation. The Board ordered Newtown to sign a collective-bargaining agreement that had been reached on July 17, 1984.
Newtown argues that it was not obligated to execute the contract because the union determined to submit the company’s proposed contract to a vote of its membership and a majority failed to ratify it. Although its membership was evenly split 5-5 on the question of ratification, the union leadership informed the company that it accepted the agreement and requested that the company execute it. We believe that our decision in Houchens Market of Elizabethtown, Inc. v. NLRB, 375 F. 2d 208 (6th Cir.1967), fully supports the Board’s position that the company could not take advantage of the tie vote to disavow the contract.
While respondent also argues that the agreement failed to resolve mandatory terms relating to the commencement date of the contract, the company did not raise this issue before the Board and therefore we may not consider it in this review. Garment Workers’ v. Quality Mfg. Co., 420 U.S. 276, 281 n. 3, 95 S.Ct. 972, 975 n. 3, 43 L.Ed.2d 189 (1975); NLRB v. Allied Prods. Corp., 548 F. 2d 644, 653-54 (6th Cir.1977).
We therefore ENFORCE the Board’s order in full.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Standard Fittings Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 845 F.2d 1311 (5th Cir. 1988)
-
VAN Dorn Plastic Mach. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 881 F.2d 302 (6th Cir. 1989)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Auciello Iron Works, Inc., 980 F.2d 804 (1st Cir. 1992)
Authorities Cited
- Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Upper S. Dep't, Afl-Cio v. Quality Mfg. Co., 420 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1975)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Allied Prods. Corp., 548 F.2d 644 (6th Cir. 1977)
- Houchens Mkt. OF Elizabethtown, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 375 F.2d 208 (6th Cir. 1967)