NLRB v. Patent Trader, Inc.
| Citation | 426 F.2d 791 |
| Decision Date | 25 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 432,Docket 32743.,432 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. PATENT TRADER, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on the brief, for petitioner.
Hugh P. Husband, Jr., New York City, on the brief, for respondent.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and WATERMAN, MOORE, FRIENDLY, SMITH, KAUFMAN, HAYS, ANDERSON and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board petitioned for a rehearing en banc of our panel decision in this case, reported at 415 F.2d 190, 2 Cir., insofar as it denied enforcement of the Board's order that Patent Trader, Inc. bargain with the Union and conditioned the bargaining duty on the Union's winning a second Board election.1 We granted the petition for rehearing en banc and allowed the filing of additional briefs. Upon consideration by the full court,2 we withdraw that portion of the panel opinion entitled "The Remedy," reported at 415 F.2d 200-203, and enforce the Board's bargaining order.3
The facts of the case are thoroughly set forth in the panel opinion and need not be repeated here. Briefly, the Board petitioned this court for enforcement of its order requiring the Company to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices and to bargain collectively with the Union. The panel found that even though the Union had been certified after a Board-conducted election, the Company thereafter interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees and for almost a year refused to bargain in good faith with the Union, thereby violating sections 8(a) (1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. This holding was joined in by all members of the panel. Despite these findings, the panel majority refused to enforce the Board's bargaining order because the Union had been "repudiated by the employees." The "repudiation" took place in a secret ballot by the employees a few days after the Company had capped a long series of delaying tactics, designed to destroy the Union majority, with "promises of benefit for the purpose of encouraging abandonment of the Union," 415 F.2d at 199. One member of the panel dissented from the refusal to enforce the bargaining order.
Upon consideration by the full court, and substantially for the reasons set forth in the dissent to the panel opinion, we believe that enforcement of the Board's bargaining order need not be conditioned on another Board election. It must be remembered that this is not a union authorization card case; the Union was certified after an election. The choice here is not between a bargaining order or an election in the first instance, but between requiring two Board elections rather than just the one already held. The basic point is that it is error to refuse to enforce a bargaining order when it is conceded that there has been a Board election, the Union was duly certified, and the Company thereafter refused to bargain in good faith. Requiring still another Board election in such a situation undermines the central purpose of the National Labor Relations Act, since it gives an employer an incentive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. Maywood Plant of Grede Plastics
...Corp., 579 F.2d 1388, 1390 (7th Cir. 1978); Ex-Cell-O Corp. v. NLRB, 449 F.2d 1058, 1063 (D.C. Cir. 1971); NLRB v. Patent Trader, Inc., 426 F.2d 791, 792 (2d Cir. 1970) (en banc). 3 Such a bargaining order is, accordingly, the customary remedy when the employer's refusal to bargain is incid......
-
Eastern Maine Medical Center v. N.L.R.B.
...enf'd, 524 F.2d 37 (6th Cir. 1975); NLRB v. Patent Trader, Inc., 415 F.2d 190, 198 (2d Cir. 1969), modified on other grounds, 426 F.2d 791 (1970) (en banc); Adrian Daily Telegram, 214 N.L.R.B. 1103 (1974). We defer here, as in South Shore, to the Board's judgment that this approach impaired......
-
Glomac Plastics, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...conduct at the bargaining table. N. L. R. B. v. Patent Trader, Inc., 415 F.2d 190, 197 (2d Cir. 1969), aff'd as modified, 426 F.2d 791 (1970) (en banc). Moreover, we will not lightly disregard the Board's expertise in assessing whether the party's conduct evidences a sincere desire to reach......
-
Bryant & Stratton Business Institute, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...Plastics, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 600 F.2d 3, 4 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam) (hereinafter "Glomac Plastics II "); N.L.R.B. v. Patent Trader, Inc., 426 F.2d 791, 792 (2d Cir.1970) (en banc). Moreover, Bryant misunderstands the significance of the Regional Director's narrow determination. On or about......