NLRB v. Heck's, Inc., 16771.
| Decision Date | 29 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 16771.,16771. |
| Citation | 369 F.2d 370 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. HECK'S, INC., d/b/a Heck's Discount Store, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Marsha Swiss, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Elliott Moore, Attorney, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on brief, for petitioner.
Frederick F. Holroyd, Washington, D. C., George v. Gardner, Gardner, Gandal & Holroyd, Washington, D. C., on brief, for respondent.
Before O'SULLIVAN, PHILLIPS and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board has filed a petition for enforcement of its order reported at 150 N.L.R.B. 1565. Respondent was found to have violated Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158 (a) (1) and (3), and was ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and to take certain affirmative action, including the posting of the customary notices and reinstatement of employee Mrs. June Menshouse with backpay.
No attorney for respondent appeared before this court for the oral argument. Instead a copy of a letter from respondent to the Regional Director was presented, stating respondent's intention to post the required notices and to comply with the order of the Board. The Board continues to seek enforcement of its order, stating that a backpay obligation owing to Mrs. Menshouse remains unpaid and, although Mrs. Menshouse appears to be presently employed by the respondent, the Board has no way of determining at this time whether she has been restored permanently to her former position, pay and seniority rights.
Assuming that respondent has complied with the Board's order (a fact which is denied by the Board), it is well settled that compliance with the order is no defense against the entry of a decree of enforcement. The order of the Board imposes a continuing obligation, and the Board is entitled to have a resumption of the unfair labor practices barred by an enforcement decree. Abandonment of an unfair labor practice does not cause the proceeding to become moot. N. L. R. B. v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc., 339 U.S. 563, 70 S.Ct. 833, 94 L.Ed. 1067; N. L. R. B. v. Toledo Desk & Fixture Co., 158 F.2d 426 (C.A.6).
We have reviewed the record and find the decision and order of the Board to be supported by substantial evidence.
Enforcement granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Louisville Chair Company, 17803.
...enforcing that order. N. L. R. B. v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc., 339 U.S. 563, 70 S.Ct. 833, 94 L.Ed. 1067 (1960); N. L. R. B. v. Heck's, Inc., 369 F.2d 370 (6th Cir. 1966). Here facts necessary to determine the amount of back pay for which the Respondent is liable were neither raised nor re......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Michigan Conference of Teamsters Welfare Fund
...the respondent's statement that it intends to reimburse the employee does not moot the propriety of enforcement. NLRB v. Heck's, Inc., 369 F.2d 370, 371 (6th Cir.1966). We agree, however, that Local 243 has complied with the Board's posting requirement and need not do so While Local 243 rig......
-
Food Store Emp. U., Loc. No. 347 Amal. Meat Cut. v. NLRB
...so ordered. 1 The long history of this struggle is as follows: Heck's Discount Store, 150 NLRB 1565 (1965), enforced per curiam, 369 F.2d 370 (6th Cir. 1966); Heck's Inc., 156 NLRB 760 (1966), enforced as modified, 386 F.2d 317 (4th Cir. 1968); Heck's Inc., 158 NLRB 121, enforced per curiam......
-
Stark Ceramics, Inc. v. NLRB
...to a decree enforcing the remainder of its Order, even though the remaining parts of the Order have been complied with. NLRB v. Heck's Inc., 369 F.2d 370 (C.A. 6th 1966); NLRB v. Toledo Desk & Fixture Co., 158 F.2d 426 (6th Cir. 1946); NLRB v. Oertel Brewing Co., 197 F.2d 59 (6th Cir. 1952)......