Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 524 F.2d 37 (6th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 524 F.2d 37 (6th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Duffy Tool & Stamping, L.L.C. v. National Labor Relations Board (ca7, 2000-12-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see, e.g." Duffy Tool & Stamping, L.L.C. v. National Labor Relations Board
7th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co., 205 F.2d 131, 139 (1st Cir.1953); see also Federal Mogul Corp., 212 N.L.R.B. 950 , 951 (1974), enforced, 524 F.2d 37 (6th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Duffy Tool & Stamping, L.L.C., Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner, and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Afl-Cio, Intervenor
7th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co., 205 F.2d 131, 139 (1st Cir. 1953); see also Federal Mogul Corp., 212 N.L.R.B. 950 , 951 (1974), enforced, 524 F.2d 37 (6th Cir. 1975). 10 For all these reasons, we think the Board is on sound ground in insisting that the employer bargain until it is plain that the parties are deadlocked in the negotiation as a whole, a point not reached here.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
74-2178.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Oct 13, 1975.
524 F.2d 37
John Corbett O’Meara, Lawrence G. Campbell, Dickinson, Wright, McKean & Cudlip, Earl V. Brown, Jr., Detroit, Mich., for petitioner., Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Paul J. Spielberg, Edmund D. Cooke, Jr., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Edwards, Peck, McCree.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

Petitioner seeks review (and the Board by cross-application seeks enforcement) of an order of the National Labor Relations Board requiring Federal-Mogul to rehire certain former employees who had been discharged as a result of a strike found by the Board to have been an unfair labor practice strike. The Board’s order is reported at 212 N.L.R.B. No. 141.

The majority of the Board found, we believe on substantial evidence on the whole record, that the company had refused to bargain in good faith. During over ten months of bargaining, beginning August 23, 1972, the company never made any economic offer of any kind. Its first economic proposals came July 11, 1973, 42 days after the strike occurred, and then its proposals were withdrawn after five days. The union, which had been certified as bargaining agent before negotiations began, had opened the negotiations by stating all of its economic demands except wages. Nonetheless, for a substantial time the union acquiesced in the company’s demand to settle noneconomic issues first. In the weeks immediately before the strike, however, the union made a wage proposal and, unsuccessfully, sought economic proposals from the company.

The order of the National Labor Relations Board is enforced.