NLRB v. AEROVOX CORP. OF MYRTLE BEACH, SO. CAROLINA
| Decision Date | 29 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 11652.,11652. |
| Citation | 390 F.2d 653 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. AEROVOX CORPORATION OF MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Alan D. Eisenberg, Atty., N. L. R. B., (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel and George B. Driesen, Atty., N. L. R. B., on the brief) for petitioner.
Wm. H. Smith, Jr., Columbia, S. C., (Ellison D. Smith, Jr., Columbia, S. C., on the brief) for respondent.
Before BRYAN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges, and KELLAM, District Judge.
The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order of June 19, 1967, 165 NLRB No. 70. Finding Aerovox Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, in its electrical equipment plant there, at fault for not bargaining, the Board ordered it to bargain with Local Union No. 382, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. The company rested its refusal on the ground that the unit certified by the Board for IBEW's representation was inappropriate.
Only production and maintenance employees, the company urges, should have been embraced by the Board, instead of complying with the union's request for a unit composed of maintenance employees, which included maintenance shop employees, janitors and set-up men, who keep the production machinery in repair.
Although the employer's preference would seem more logical, the Board's determination cannot be rejected unless arbitrary or capricious. E. g. Packard Motor Car Co. v. N.L.R.B., 330 U.S. 485, 491, 67 S.Ct. 789, 91 L.Ed. 1040 (1947). Since we conclude that there is a rational basis for the unit designated here we cannot interfere with the Board's judgment.
Nor can we set aside the summary judgment passed by the Board at the union's instance based on the evidence. In the absence of special circumstances not shown to exist here, the Board is entitled thus to expedite the case. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 161-162, 61 S.Ct. 908, 85 L.Ed. 1251 (1941). Since the company's defenses to the unfair labor practice charge had previously been aired in the representation contest, the Board was justified in resolving the charge without another plenary hearing See Overnite Transportation Co. v. N.L.R.B., 4 Cir., 327 F.2d 36, 40 (1963).
Order enforced.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Union Brothers, Inc.
...by every circuit that has considered it. E. g., NLRB v. Puritan Sportswear Corp., 385 F.2d 142 (3rd Cir. 1967); NLRB v. Aerovox Corp., 390 F.2d 653 (4th Cir. 1968); LTV Electrosystems v. NLRB, 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968); NLRB v. Carolina Natural Gas Corp., 386 F.2d 571 (4th Cir. 1967); Ne......
-
NLRB v. Clement-Blythe Companies
...representative complement of its ultimate work force." 5 NLRB v. Union Bros., Inc., 403 F.2d 883, 887 (4th Cir. 1968); NLRB v. Aerovox Corp., 390 F.2d 653 (4th Cir. 1968); LTV Electrosystems v. NLRB, 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968); NLRB v. Carolina Natural Gas Corp., 386 F.2d 571 (4th Cir. 19......
-
NLRB v. HARRY T. CAMPBELL SONS'CORPORATION
...Corp., 386 F.2d 571 (4 Cir. 1967); LTV Electrosystems, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 388 F.2d 683 (4 Cir. 1968); N. L. R. B. v. Aerovox Corp. of Myrtle Beach, S. C., 390 F.2d 653 (4 Cir. 1968). Here, the refusal to bargain was predicated solely on the claimed inappropriateness of the bargaining unit......
-
AEROVOX CORPORATION OF MYRTLE BEACH, SC v. NLRB, 12565.
...objections to the election, NLRB v. Bata Shoe Co., supra, at 825-826, or in unfair labor practice proceedings, NLRB v. Aerovox Corp., 390 F.2d 653 (4 Cir. 1968). In the instant case, the factual circumstances are largely uncontroverted. There is no doubt that a representation was made, that......