Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hiney Printing Co., 733 F.2d 1170 (6th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hiney Printing Co., 733 F.2d 1170 (6th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · 2 courts · …the posting of notices serves two purposes: advising the employees that the nlrb has protected their rights, and preventing or deterring future violations. at p. 1171 ✓
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bowling Transportation, Inc., Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner (ca6, 2004-03-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bowling Transportation, Inc., Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner (2×)
6th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
National Licorice Co. v. NLRB, 309 U.S. 350, 362 , 60 S.Ct. 569 , 84 L.Ed. 799 (1940); NLRB v. Hiney Printing Co., 733 F.2d 1170, 1171 (6th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited "see" Kerwin v. Starbucks Corporation
E.D. Mich. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See NLRB v. Hiney Printing Co., 733 F.2d 1170, 1171 (6th Cir. 1984) (noting that Board is “charged with serving the public interest to enforce labor relations rights” and thus protects “public” rights).
cited Cited "see" Montague v. National Labor Relations Board
6th Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See NLRB v. Hiney Printing Co., 733 F.2d 1170, 1171 (6th Cir.1984); NLRB v. Great Western Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 740 F.2d 398, 406 (5th Cir.1984).
cited Cited "see" Montague v. NLRB
6th Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See NLRB v. Hiney Printing Co., 733 F.2d 1170, 1171 (6th Cir. 1984); NLRB v. Great Western Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 740 F.2d 398, 406 (5th Cir. 1984).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons Federal Correctional Complex Coleman v. FLRA
D.C. Cir. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Cir. 1984); see also NLRB v. Hiney Printing Co., 733 F.2d 1170, 1171 (6th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (“[T]he posting of notices serves two purposes: advising the employees that the NLRB has protected their rights, and preventing or deterring future violations.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States Department of Justice v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
D.D.C. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Cir. 1984); see also NLRB v. Hiney Printing Co., 733 F.2d 1170, 1171 (6th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (“[T]he posting of notices serves two purposes: advising the employees that the NLRB has protected their rights, and preventing or deterring future violations.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
HINEY PRINTING COMPANY, Respondent
83-5172, 83-5420.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
May 10, 1984.
733 F.2d 1170
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Carol A. De Deo, Mendelssohn V. McLean (argued), Washington, D.C., for petitioner., Edward C. Kaminski (argued), Akron, Ohio, for respondent.
Edwards, Gibson, Jones, Per Curiam.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The sole issue in this case is presented by petitioner National Labor Relations Board’s request for its enforcement of an order to post notices in the plant of its order finding that the company had violated § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5), and that the union had committed no violations. The company’s cross-appeal contends that there is no longer any dispute with the union since all issues have been agreed upon and that the posting of the notices would be destructive of company-union harmony rather than helpful.

The company relies in part on the union’s agreement that notices do not need to be posted. The company also contends that the petitioner’s order to post the notices should be denied because of mootness.

Our review of this record indicates that in fact, after many months of dispute, the parties are in agreement on the basic problems between them. Nonetheless, compliance has not been had with the Board’s order to post notices of its decisions in these cases. The statute clearly calls for the posting of notices as a part of the enforcement procedure of the NLRB. NLRB is charged with serving the public interest to enforce labor relations rights which are public, not private rights. NLRB v. Heck’s, Inc., 369 F.2d 370 (6th Cir.1966). As the Board argues, the posting of notices serves two purposes: advising the employees that the NLRB has protected their rights, and preventing or deterring future violations.

We have noted the case relied upon by respondent Hiney Printing Company, NLRB v. Fourco Glass Co., 646 F.2d 863 (4th Cir.1981), where the court denied enforcement of the Board’s order holding that agreement between the parties on all issues had rendered the case moot. The opinion does not advise as to whether or not the Board’s order was posted. If we assume that it was not, we respectfully disagree with the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion.

Enforcement of the Board’s order to post the required notices in this case is hereby granted.