620 F.2d 116 (6th Cir. 1980), 78-1136, N.L.R.B. v. Aluminum Cruiser, Inc.

Docket Nº:78-1136.
Citation:620 F.2d 116
Party Name:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. ALUMINUM CRUISER, INC., Respondent.
Case Date:April 18, 1980
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Page 116

620 F.2d 116 (6th Cir. 1980)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,

v.

ALUMINUM CRUISER, INC., Respondent.

No. 78-1136.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

April 18, 1980

Page 117

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Barbard Gehring, William Stewart, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., Emil Farkas, Director, Region 9, NLRB, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner.

Edgar A. Zingman, Grover C. Potts, Wyatt, Grafton & Sloss, Louisville, Ky., for respondent.

Before LIVELY, KEITH and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the court upon the application of petitioner National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act for enforcement of its order issued on February 21, 1978 against respondent, Aluminum Cruiser, Inc. Unfair labor practice charges were filed with the Regional Director of the Board on February 11, 1977 by five former employees of the Company and a complaint thereafter issued. In that complaint, it was alleged that the Company's hiring of a new employee on or about January 31, 1977, following an economic strike by employees and a subsequent agreement to preferentially hire all those employees who had been permanently replaced, violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act. A hearing was held with respect to the unfair labor practice charges on July 28, 1977 before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who found that the Company violated Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) by failing to offer the vacancy to one of the five qualified strikers before offering the job to an outsider.

The Board issued an order requiring the Company to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from in any other manner interfering with the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act. Affirmatively, the Board's order requires the Company to offer one of the remaining five "qualified" strikers reinstatement to the position of Stock Checker or to a substantially equivalent position, and to dismiss the newly employed Stock Checker or any other Stock Checker hired on or after January 15, 1977, if necessary, to make room for such qualified striker. The Board further ordered the Company to make that employee whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him and to post the customary notices.

The issues presented to this court are:

(1) Whether substantial evidence...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP