NLRB v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn Division, No. 15751
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 390 F.2d 787 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. TENNESSEE PACKERS, INC., FROSTY MORN DIVISION, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | 16061.,No. 15751 |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1968 |
390 F.2d 787 (1968)
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
TENNESSEE PACKERS, INC., FROSTY MORN DIVISION, Respondent.
Nos. 15751, 16061.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
March 6, 1968.
Paul Elking and Charles M. Steele, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner; 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 brief.
Asa R. Ambrister, Nashville, Tenn., for respondent.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and O'SULLIVAN and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
These cases pertain to the computation of wages and interest due on certain back pay awards.1 Before oral argument of these cases, respondent wrote the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board asking for agreement to a one-month delay in filing of briefs in order to attempt to effect settlement.
The Assistant General Counsel responded: "In regard to settlement of these cases, discussions regarding such matters should be conducted with the Regional Office."
Respondent initiated such discussions. Figures pertaining to wages and interest in each back pay case were agreed upon. The Regional Director then sent respondent a letter, dated July 13, 1967, confirming the settlement and directing how the checks were to be written. Respondent then forwarded checks in compliance therewith.
Subsequently the agreement thus arrived at was rejected by the General Counsel's office of the NLRB and respondent's checks were returned.
At oral argument before this court counsel for the NLRB took the position that the settlement figures stated in the Regional Director's letter of July 13, 1967, did not reflect interest computations. But in its supplemental brief filed subsequent to the hearing, the Board now concedes that interest was included in the computations.
There is nothing in the record to indicate any objection to the settlement by the charging party. In fact, it appears to us that the Board now offers no reason for rejection of the settlement except that no such settlement is final until it has Board approval.
The National Labor Relations Act has committed exclusive authority pertaining to remedial measures for unfair labor practices to the Board itself, subject only to judicial review. 29 U.S. C. § 160(c) (1964). As a matter of law no "settlement" can be binding until and unless it has Board approval. N.L.R.B. v. Armstrong...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pegasus Broadcasting of San Juan, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI
...is contingent upon the General Counsel's approval. Id. §§ 101.9, 101.13, 101.16, 102.52 et seq. See NLRB v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., 390 F.2d 787, 788 (6th Cir.1968) (collecting cases). Here, neither the union nor the Board agrees with the Company that the issue of compliance with the backp......
-
NLRB v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn Division, No. 17183
...that this discharge was discriminatory as opposed to a proper application of a rule the company had a right to adopt. The fact that 390 F.2d 787 she was a known union supporter, a union observer, and was called but did not testify in a Board hearing, did not insulate her against discharge f......
-
CONSOLIDATED FOODS CORPORATION v. NLRB, No. 18073.
...that Mrs. Fletcher's discharge was through other than the proper application of a company rule. See N.L.R.B. v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., 390 F.2d 787 (6th Cir.1968). The Board placed great stress on the company's unrelated anti-union actions and its hostile attitude toward the Fletchers aft......
-
Pegasus Broadcasting of San Juan, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI
...is contingent upon the General Counsel's approval. Id. §§ 101.9, 101.13, 101.16, 102.52 et seq. See NLRB v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., 390 F.2d 787, 788 (6th Cir.1968) (collecting cases). Here, neither the union nor the Board agrees with the Company that the issue of compliance with the backp......
-
NLRB v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn Division, No. 17183
...that this discharge was discriminatory as opposed to a proper application of a rule the company had a right to adopt. The fact that 390 F.2d 787 she was a known union supporter, a union observer, and was called but did not testify in a Board hearing, did not insulate her against discharge f......
-
CONSOLIDATED FOODS CORPORATION v. NLRB, No. 18073.
...that Mrs. Fletcher's discharge was through other than the proper application of a company rule. See N.L.R.B. v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., 390 F.2d 787 (6th Cir.1968). The Board placed great stress on the company's unrelated anti-union actions and its hostile attitude toward the Fletchers aft......