N.L.R.B. v. Limestone Apparel Corp.

Citation705 F.2d 799
Decision Date29 October 1982
Docket NumberAFL-CI,I,No. 81-1693,81-1693
Parties113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2517, 97 Lab.Cas. P 10,076 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,ntervenor, v. LIMESTONE APPAREL CORPORATION, Respondent.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

Petition to Enforce an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Jacob Oliner, Oliner & Oliner, New York City, for respondent.

Before LIVELY, KRUPANSKY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court upon the motion of the intervenor, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, for an order enforcing the order of the National Labor Relations Board in Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB No. 101 (1981), and for an order awarding punitive damages and double costs against the respondent company.

The Court has considered the motion and the briefs of the Board and the intervenor. It is noted that the respondent has not filed a brief on the merits nor has it responded to the instant motion. Finding the motion for enforcement of the Board's order to be well taken,

It is ORDERED that the motion be, and it hereby is, granted, and the Clerk shall enter a judgment enforcing in its entirety the order of the Board. It is further ORDERED that the intervenor union recover from the respondent double the costs of this action; Rule 38, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. That part of the motion seeking punitive damages is hereby denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
89 cases
  • Nebraska Public Employees Local Union 251 v. Otoe County
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • June 4, 1999
    ...See, Frank Black Mechanical Services, 271 N.L.R.B. 1302 (1984); Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 N.L.R.B. 722 (1981), enforced 705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir.1982). "[A] finding of pretext necessarily means that the reasons advanced by the employer either did not exist or were not in fact relied upon, t......
  • Massey Energy Co.
    • United States
    • National Labor Relations Board
    • September 28, 2012
    ...pretextual, employer necessarily fails to establish Wright Line defense); accord: Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 N.L.R.B. 722 (1981), enfd. 705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982). [14] Members Block and Griffin recognize that Toering represents existing Board law. They find no reason at this time to de......
  • Continental Cablevision v. Storer Broadcasting, 83-2116C(1) (formerly No. 81-MISC-101).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • March 30, 1984
    ......The following statement from Solargen Electric Motor Car Corp. v. American Motors Corp., 506 F.Supp. 546 (N.D.N.Y.1981), is ......
  • Kingman Hospital, Inc.
    • United States
    • National Labor Relations Board
    • March 17, 2016
    ...351 NLRB 657, 659 (2007); Golden State Foods Corp., 340 NLRB 382, 385 (2003); Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722, 722 (1981), enfd. 705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982). C. Did Calderon and Hager Engage in Protected Concerted Activity? 1. Discussion of concertedness and mutual aid or protection ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT