General Motors Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 16006
| Decision Date | 27 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | 16076.,No. 16006,16006 |
| Citation | 345 F.2d 516 |
| Parties | GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE AERO-SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION), Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Eugene L. Hartwig, Detroit, Mich., for General Motors, Aloysius F. Power, Gen. Counsel, Detroit, Mich., on the brief, Harry S. Benjamin, Jr., K. Douglas Mann and George Cherpelis, Detroit, Mich., of counsel.
Marion Griffin, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for N.L.R.B., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Stephen Goldberg, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., on the brief.
Kenneth M. Schwartz, Arnold, Smith & Schwartz, Los Angeles, Cal., for International Union.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and CECIL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
These cases, like Armco Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 6 Cir., 344 F.2d 621 decided April 27, 1965, present the question as to the validity of a no-distribution provision in a collective bargaining agreement. Unlike Armco, no rival union was involved.
The charges on which the complaints issued, were made by an employee. The Board found that General Motors and the International Union respectively violated Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act by maintaining a contract prohibiting the distribution of literature on company premises without making any exception that would permit employee distribution on behalf of a rival labor organization during non-working time in non-working areas.
The Board issued a cease and desist order which is reported at 147 NLRB No. 59. One member concurred in part and dissented in part. Another member dissented in part.
No claim was made that the no-distribution clause was not uniformly enforced against all employees or that there was any discrimination or coercion on the part of either General Motors or the Union. Nor was it contended that employees desiring to distribute literature did not have adequate alternative means.
The Board held that the no-distribution clause was a per se violation of Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. Its decision was based on its holding in Gale Products, reported in 142 NLRB 1246.
The Union filed no brief in this Court and did not participate in the oral argument.
For the reasons stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Mid-States Metal Products, Inc.
...1965), denying enforcement of 148 N.L.R.B. 1179,7 and again, on the authority of Armco, declined enforcement in General Motors Corp. v. NLRB, 345 F.2d 516 (6th Cir. 1965), denying enforcement of 147 N.L.R.B. 509. These cases may be explained in part by the fact that the rules were enforced ......
-
INTERNATIONAL ASS'N OF MACH. & A. WKRS. DIST. NO. 9 v. NLRB
...validity of similar clauses in collective bargaining agreements have reached conflicting results.5 The Sixth Circuit General Motors Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 345 F.2d 516 (6th Cir. 1965); Armco Steel Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 344 F.2d 621 (6th Cir. 1965) and the Seventh Circuit N.L. R.B. v. G......
-
NLRB v. EW Buschman Co., 17092.
...been upheld." See also National Labor Relations Board v. Gale Products, 337 F.2d 390 (C.A.7, 1964), and General Motors v. National Labor Relations Board, 345 F.2d 516 (C.A.6, 1965). Here the Local Union waived its right when the Union advised the Company by letter that it approved the Compa......
-
MAGNAVOX COMPANY OF TENNESSEE v. NLRB, 72-1121
...to follow the rule in our circuit enunciated in Armco Steel Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 344 F.2d 621 (1965), and in General Motors Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 345 F.2d 516 (1965). The Board's order required the company to cease and desist from maintaining or enforcing any rule which prohibits dis......