National Labor Relations Board v. Ship Shape Maintenance Co., Inc.

MILLER, Before WILBUR K. Senior Judge, Circuit McGOWAN Mac- Judges. KINNON, Circuit Judge: MacKINNON, Circuit The National Labor Relations Board (Labor Board) petitioned has this court remedial order en- enforcement of a against Ship Shape tered Mainte- Company (hereinafter nance the “Com- pany”), from the Labor which resulted finding Board’s had practice labor violated certain unfair provisions Labor Rela- National Act, (N.L.R.A.).1 The as amended tions challenged the suffi- has both ciency supporting of the evidence Labor de- Board’s unfair propriety por- terminations and Ship 22,879 Co., Inc., Shape ¶ NLRB No. Maintenance NLRB 1971 CCH demanding order. For remedial grant recognition. re did not below, en- we discussed the reasons spond request. order, Simultane as to the Union’s Labor Board’s forcement of the Company, rejection ous of its letter modified our petition Union filed Regional with the Office represen Board, requesting I among Company em the tation election Maryland corpora- Company ais The building. ployees The Re the at 500-550 janitorial provides services tion which gional the mailed notification Office buildings approximately office Company petition on Oc Union’s 1969, Washington, OnC. October D. tober 27. to contract Company obtained November, during Sometime Street, building 12th at 500-550 clean the Company Netterstrom President James (hereinafter build- the “500-550 S.W. building utilize decided to the 500-550 ing”), at this it commenced work and training employ- facility a for new as evening 20. of October location on the ees, transferring them to other before business The nature Company performs locations where the high generally rate has a such that it janitorial at no time services. employs ap- employee It turnover. Company’s at- did Netterstrom or the persons lo- proximately at all torneys to or to reveal the Labor Board During employed cations. it about Company considered Union only individuals, different training building site the 500-550 to be relatively permanent whom em- employees that, would consequently, ployees, positions. fill Be- to these 600 only prior temporarily be- there to work July January 1, 1970, tween ing reassigned Company to loca- employed persons it 149 different at the Company Nor did dis- ever tions. average building, 500-550 work manage- realty close decision to complement of 35-40. had ment firm with contracted Company Before obtained 500- building, to or to the clean the 500-550 building Employ- contract, Service working Company employees there. Union, ees International Local AFL- (hereinafter “Union”) CIO had been Company On and the December engaged organize campaign in a to stipulation Union for certi- executed employees predecessor supplier agreement, fication consent election janitorial services there. When the Com- approved Re- Board’s was pany cleaning duties, assumed its gional covering Director on December organizing campaign Union altered its building employees 500-550 per- Company on the new concentrate Company. stipulation This limited vot- days, sonnel. several Within ing eligibility employees work- those ostensibly obtained authorization cards ing during unit4 signed by Company employees. excluding ending week November “any employees quit or have since who On October Union wrote discharged claiming Company, represent been elec- for cause.” The ma evening of jority “employees” statutory scheduled for was the 28 employed employees 2(3) N.L.R.A., Em- All S.W., Street, statutory 152(3) ployer at its 500-550 12th for the U.S.C. working “employee.” Washington, as D.C. location definition the term charwomen, porters, janitors, maids, excluding but office Some of these other locations waxers buffers super- guards employees, already organized, have been while others clerical in the Act. have not. visors as defined this unit conceded bargaining, 4. The defined to in- for collective unit was agreed. : the Labor Board clude January report in the basement store- these did not for work building. ordered, as room of the 500-550 never worked for again. Eight reported 5, 1969, Netterstrom On December assignments January 5, their new Regional Office list of mailed working and were at their new locations employees required under January on the date of the 9 election. list, This “Excelsior” doctrine.5 eight quit Subsequently, one of these at names, purported to which contained 32 January, 1970, the end of and another Company’s employees cover at the During quit March, the week building as of November January 5, 1970, Company per- formed its chores By January week before one complement approximate- with a full election, the scheduled ly employees, all of whom had been persons on the Excelsior named rep- hired after the November Company’s employ list had left the eligibility resentation election date. reasons not at On the eve- issue here. January 9, 1970, On the Labor Board’s ning January persons of of the 16 agent election endeavored to conduct the on the Excelsior still in the list who were representation election, despite scheduled company’s employ final worked their Company’s notification from the attor- building. shift at Three the 500-550 ney that it considered none of the em- persons day, quit these on that ployees eligible on the Excelsior list to two were more terminated reasons vote, due to the fact that all the named remaining not relevant The here. longer employed individuals no were persons on in- the Excelsior list were building. Only person one January they formed on ing 2 that were be- eligibility ap- on named the Excelsior list Company transferred other loca- to peared, only permitted and she was to . employee who had been tions. One challenged per- cast a ballot.7 No other building hired into the 500-550 unit after voted in sons the election. November and who was there- eligible fore not on the Excelsior list or Shortly election, after the the Union representation election, to vote in the timely objections filed to conduct which was also included in the transfer order. allegedly affected the results the elec- supervisor,6 All January but one tion. On the Union Monday report charge were practice ordered to on eve- filed an unfair labor ning, January 5, alleging Board, to one or another of with the Labor viola- buildings (5) Company (3), the other 8(a)(1), where tions performed cleaning N.L.R.A.,8 complaint services. Two of is- was 7. Two or 6. This infra. immaterial This ployees January prior but to reported the names and Court practice Company appeared In Excelsior report quit policy supervisor to Board in N.L.R.B. v. to candidate labor about a week later for work at another three other requiring employers was to this case. instead of Underwear, approved addresses new location as was Board at the Wyman-Gordon Co., told employees January announced a new Inc., by polls, on See note organizations eligible for reasons 150 NLRB January to but elections. Supreme 5. She ordered, provide after em- on vote. formed them that after date, ascertaining 29 U.S.C. § title; term or condition of hire or erce rights guaranteed in any section courage tice for an (a) (1) (3) by labor the November employees in to interfere It shall be an unfair Labor Board election tenure or organization: # discrimination employer— 158(a) discourage membership they ;}; with, restrain, employment the exercise of the (1970) provides: had employment were . all been in ineligible . labor regard eligibility agent . or of this or co- to en- prac- hired ^[*] any in- in to charge. one short of the elec- the Union to fall vote pursuant The sued statutory requisite majority objections with the consolidated “employees” complaint found to have “for who were ruling employed unit hearing, been purpose and decision rejected on demand for rec- the date the by a Trial Examiner.” ognition made the Union. had been hearing July, held be- In completely The affirmed Benjamin Labor Board Black- fore Trial Examiner de- the Trial burn, Examiner’s fac- above-described wherein the concerning termination, presented. Com- tual circumstances were discriminatory transfer of all pany admitted Netterstrom President January it re- during testimony he, voters not but his 8(a)(5) versed general manager, op- section Examiner’s Melvin Shumaker, finding. The all Board validated manager, vice erations proffered the Union’s authorization president, made the actual decision cards, concluded that question. transfer refusing violated only Shu- Netterstrom indicated recog- knowledge accede to the Union’s demand personal really maker had October, nition in underlying particular indi- reasons However, de- vidual transfer selections. adopted Labor Board the Trial spite Counsel the General Examiner’s remedial subpoenaed Shumak- cease and which ordered the response er, appear he did violating desist the N.L.R.A. and subpoena; as a neither was he called wit- affirmatively which ordered the Com- by Company. ness the pany (1) employees to offer those who discriminatorily in vio- transferred The determined that Trial Examiner in lation of the and who were still 8(a)(1) Act the violated sections Company’s employ, the immediate trans- (3) N.L.R.A., by transfer- and positions fer ring back to their former at the employees January 2, 10 building, discharging, if 500-550 neces- the in to re- from 500-550 sary, (2) presently employed persons; remaining eligible move all voters10 eight discriminatorily to make pre- whole all unit and thus the employees transferred who in represen- remained clude the of the Board following employ January 9, tation election on 1970. The transfer, may any Examiner, however, their losses Trial dismissed 8(a)(5) part complaint, have sustained as a direct result section of bargain, Company’s illegal (3) only action; since he of concluded that 14 concerning by proffered upon request, 17 cards with the Union authorization valid,11 causing working hours, wages, were in fact thus conditions 1965). (5) bargain collectively (2d 350 Cir. to refuse to E.2d 170 This is objections wit]» representatives of em- filed his the reason the Union January 9, subject provisions seeking repre- ployees, of to hnve 3970 section this title. sentation election set aside. of pertinent part § of The 357 U.S.C. “super- 10. The transferee was eleventh (1970) in set note is out infra. meaning visor” within section 2(11) N.L.R.A., § U.S.C. Irving Air Under Labor Board's (11) ineligible (1970), who was therefore rule, held an Chute where the Board has “employee” representation in to vote election which the union has failed to win, pre-election Act, 2(3) election. Section of sections violations (1970) 152(3) “em- U.S.C. defines § 8(a)(1) (5) not Act will be or expressly “any ployee” as exclude so by order, which remedied supervisor.” employed as a individual requested in the instant the Union Irving 1 that 3 1. The Examiner concluded is Trial unless the election set aside. proffered Co., Division, Inc., cards were authorization Air Marathon Chute adequately (1964), enfd., authenticated. 149 NLRB Union, employees also in the bar- See International Agri gaining building;12 Aerospace Automobile, United unit at the 500-550 Implement (4) post appropriate R. cultural L. notices. Workers N. B., The enforcement action was immediate Company’s refusal necessitated comply Board’s remedial with the Labor unusual case It would indeed be II in the link between the [dis- [pro- criminatory and the action] Company has there asserted The activity supplied ex- could be tected] in the record is insufficient evidence clusively by Intent direct evidence. support unfair la- the Labor Board’s subjective many the dis- cases findings. con- bor we proven only crimination can be adequate clude there is factual basis Fur- of circumstantial evidence. use 8(a)(1) for the determination evidence, thermore, analyzing supports Board, adequately direct, circumstantial or the Board remedial order which we are modified any infer- to draw reasonable free enforcing.13 ences. no direct evi there is Processing Co., N. R. B. Melrose L. illegal discrimi dence of the (8th 1965).14 natory pre respect intent with its of all. election transfer aware of the Un- concerning majority voters then remained 500- who ion’s claimed status building unit, building employees by is substantial there part as a evidence in record considered October, latter 1969. Sometime support 1969, Company whole to November President 10(e) determination. Netterstrom decided to utilize this build- (1970); 160(e) ing training N.L.R.A., facility, 29 U.S.C. which would as B., Corp. regular N. Universal Camera L. R. necessitate the transfer of working 95 L.Ed. 456 71 S.Ct. there to build- bargaining opinion, infra), 12. The Labor Board based its for this there is no need upon part highly order in substantial its find us the sec- to resolve controversial ing 8(a)(5) bargain findings 8(a) (5) of a section violation the tion refusal to Company. Although Examiner the Trial the the which formed basis for Labor bargaining had recommended dismissal The Board’s 8(a) (5) portion complaint, determination, (3) (1) to the due and adequate affirm, his determination that the had not we herein basis forms remaining parts support a ma obtained authorization jority cards from to the the employees, wholly unit he had still are en- remedial order which we bargaining forcing. 18, a recommended issuance of or See note infra. der, he a reme since concluded that such judi 14. that “‘[t]he We must remember dy necessary rectify continuing was the is when there cial function exhausted Company’s violation effects of the for found to be a rational basis the con 8(a) (1) (3) sections Act. and approved by the administrative clusions body’ decision, expressly its In Labor Board * * * findings [, for] that, contrary the view of the indicated Examiner, and es Board the Trial Examiner, case Trial facts of this did they pecially when, as in instant bargaining not warrant issuance of a or lightly concurred], to be are not [have] upon 8(a)(1) der and based disregarded.” Union, International Unit Shape Ship See violation alone. Main Automobile, Aerospace Agricul ed and Co., Inc., NLRB No. tenance Implement tural Workers 22,879 (1971) slip NLRB ¶ 1971 CCH U.S.App.D.C. 196, 200, 392 F.2d op. 2at n. 5. denied, denying 20 L.Ed.2d Since we are enforcement of S.Ct. portion (1968). Labor (see Board’s remedial order Part III of ing Only ing adequately they one and locations as became representation Nevertheless, scheduled the Com- week before the trained. when election,15 every Company pany transferred conferred with Union thereafter agent single eligible out representatives voter of the 500-550 and a Labor Board ineligible arrange yet only representation unit, one em elec- for the ployee ord requested by was transfer Union, the Com- included strong certainly indica pany new er.16 This is inform them of the did building, Company personnel a frustrate policy tion of desire to at the 500-550 entirely notwithstanding new the scheduled the fact that high regular election, thereby depriving policy’s the Union concomitant rate of representation op might compo- greatly turnover affect sought. portunity Further sition unit. Since January 9, more, properly rec agreed-upon as the Board election date approximately justifiable ognized, a it it to draw was was a month voter an adverse from the half after November inference eligibility ac date, Shumaker, it been ob- official should have knowledge specific pol- reasons tual vious new its particular transfers, icy election —as subse- for the refused could affect despite appear testify, quent the fact events demonstrated —and subpoenaed. International reasonable for Trial Examiner he was See Aerospace Automobile, Company’s Union, the Labor to view the United Agricultural Implement point some evidence Workers v. silence as B., part. 311- faith on L. R. of bad N. its 459 F.2d therein; timing composi R. B. v. N. L. and actual and cases cited Co., similarly support tion of the transfers Products 316 F.2d A.P.W. regard (2d 1963).17 Labor Board’s determination Cir. See, g., statutory right e. N.L.R.B. v. Sutherland Lum to frustrate the sire 1971) (7th Co., part : eligible employees ber in the to take abruptness discharge of a “The election. scheduled persuasive timing evidence moti are as to note infra. Mont See also N.L.R.B. v. vation.” attempted to has Co., gomery Ward & justify eligible between imbalance (2d Cir.), cert. ineligible group voters transfer be arguing eligible been voters had reasoning appli lieve that this same (i. e., training site pre-election all transfer of cable building) greater length time proposed bargaining voters ineligible personnel, had than been the unit. ade- the over-all record we believe that See, g., Co., e. N.L.R.B. Dinion Coil quately supports ad- the Labor Board’s 484, (2d 1952), where- 201 486 interpretation regarding this factor. verse Very in the court that fact that indicated “the support strong de- Board’s for the * * * dis- more than of those 90% fact that termination derives from the * * * charged were members pro- eligible voters had been none make not union suffices to unreasonable any pre-transfer indication vided with respondent dis- Board’s inference that they might It that be so transferred. against union members criminated also informative that neither * * ”. instant In the over agent in- 90% . election was nor January 1970, prior that Company policy of those notified on formed the new being lo- were transferred to other implementation the time its actual repre- representa- to vote cations the scheduled one week before January Finally, scheduled for sentation election infer- the adverse tion election. reasonably rea- inference could drawn 1970. The be ence which could sonably supports testify be from this drawn fact con- refusal from Shumaker’s partic- cerning specific Labor Board’s conclusion reasons for the support pre-election provides transfer decision additional ular transfers part, by motivated, a de- at least for the Board’s determination.

441 appropriate would be in certain evi- situa- therefore find that substantial remedy 8(a)(5) a whole tions viola- dence on record considered as accompanied by supports tions which were Board’s the Labor concerning determination, independent practices. the Com- unfair labor See 610-615, pany’s 395 at 89 23 unlawful effort to frustrate U.S. S.Ct. election L.Ed.2d 547.20 the Court ex- pressly bargaining requested. noted which the-Union had orders

would not be in all such carefully cases, it delineated the fac- Ill tors which the Labor Board con- must the Labor we have affirmed determining bargain- sider in ing whether a regarding finding Board’s particular order should issue in a enforcing are therefore case. per- portions remedial order the taining of its properly Board can take into [T]he practice vio- unfair labor consideration the extensiveness of an grant lation,18 enforce- we are unable employer’s practices in terms bargaining ment to Board’s past of their on election condi- effect tions and likelihood their recur- controlling principles applied to be rence in the finds If the Board future. bargaining concerning propriety erasing possibility that the ef- type, were enun- orders in of this eases past practices ensuring fects of * * * by Supreme Court N.L.R.B. ciated by a use election fair Packing 89 Co., 395 U.S. Gissel though remedies, present, traditional (1969). Al- 23 L.Ed.2d 547 S.Ct. slight employee and that sentiment though approvingly noted the Court expressed through would, once cards recognition Labor Board’s balance, protected be better a generally the that “secret elections are bargaining order, then an order such * * satisfactory preferred most —indeed should issue *.21 n —-method of ascertaining whether emphasized The Court that “there is still majority support,” it indi- union has category a third of minor or exten- less bargaining upon based cated that orders support which, majority practices, card sive unfair labor be- authorization portions extremely pervasive 18. It is clear where there have been herein order which we and substantial unfair vio remedial lations, might prop re enforce are within the area of broad provided erly medial discretion in section even ordered the Labor Board be N.L.R.A., 10(e) 8(a) (5) refusal U.S.C. the absence of a section Corp. (e) Dodge Phelps bargain violation, See need of and without N.L.R.B., majority inquiry question stat S.Ct. into the (1941) ; Virginia us, 85 L.Ed. Electric order would be where such remedial (see remedy N.L.R.B., only available, & Power Co. v. 319 U.S. effective (1943) ; 613-614, L.Ed. 1568 S.Ct. expressly Amalgamated Clothing 547), Amer found Workers of the Board N.L.R.B., ica not constitute the instant case did (1966) ; exceptional to warrant situation Office such principle. particular Employees application Professional International Un of this Co., Inc., U.S.App. ion, Ship Shape Maintenance Local 425 v. 22,- 12, 19-20, ¶ NLRB CCH D.C. F.2d NLRB No. op. accompanying (1971) slip also 2 n. 3. at See note See text, 12, supra. supra. note 1918, 1934, 19. 395 at at 89 S.Ct. U.S. 614-615, at 1940 at 89 S.Ct. 21. 395 U.S. 23 L.Ed.2d 547. supplied). (emphasis Alaska New See N.L.R.B., Corp. Development 441 F.2d Although Packing the Gissel decision (7th 1971). “exceptional” cases Cir. also noted that employees. of were any All them of impact on the elec- minimal of their cause being merely that machinery, a informed bar- not sustain will Company locations to other gaining transferred at 89 S.Ct. U.S. order.” 395 change apparently valid result of an aas at 1940.22 operating procedures. Fur- Company Packing stan Gissel When important to note that is thermore, in applied to facts of are dards history of other no indicates the record apparent that stant it becomes part on the of anti-union behavior bargaining im order was Labor Board’s circumstances, Company.25 these Under issued, therefore be properly it must clearly to believe that no reason there is of violation denied enforcement.23 any unfair labor will be further there Com which the violations a pany not of sub committed was such “the therefore that future. conclude considering of nature, all stantial erasing past possibility of the effects of circumstances, issu to warrant relevant ensuring practices fair election and of a bargaining order.24 ance of ** reme- of use traditional enforce, dies,” herein so which we cognizant that of We are strong rejection of warrant our as to discriminatory transfer bargaining proposed order before one week of all voters “preferred” election in favor of Jan election scheduled Packing process. N.L.R.B. Gissel See effectively rendered uary Co., supra, 89 S.Ct. U.S. particular meaningful that of 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d considera- 547. Other However, impossible. does this election support tions our determination. unfair not mean that effects sufficiently pervasive practice were labor carefully must remembered that It be lingering a determina to warrant “placed Packing decision bar the Gissel subsequent not could tion that a election gaining majority on orders based a card reasonably held would be free be extraordinary special category: in a the Com the adverse influence of remedy over to the available pany’s unlawful action. employ polluting come the effects practices on the on elec No anti-union er’s unfair overt animus * * * not, atmosphere. part demonstrated toral It respect bar, principles proper in Gis case at due enunciated Under employer’s subjective simplicity Paching, of the factual circum- sel “[t]he controlling import our desire avoid stances involved and motivation is [not] needlessly protract- Instead, delay through ance. must be focused further attention litigation. relationship v. Kostel N.L.R.B. casual between ed See 1971). (7th practices process.’* Corp., Cir. and the election Drives, Inc., N.L.R.B. v. purposes evaluation 24. For our (7th 1971), appropriateness of the Labor Board’s the proposed bargaining 912, 92 L.Ed.2d 185 under the Gis- order assume, arguendo, Paelcing rules, sel we Board’s section the correctness recognize general we it is we since determination. ly Board, for the Labor re and not circumstances the factual conclude viewing courts, make the determina en- warrant do the instant case tion of particular whether circumstances bargaining forcement case warrant issuance 8(a) (5) accepting the Board’s order even bargaining order, remedial see N.L.R.B. findings, not —and do not —re- we need Packing Co., v. Gissel 395 U.S. complex re- controversial solve (1969) ; 89 S.Ct. bargain note issue. fusal Pranks Brothers v.Co. supra. 64 S.Ct. 88 L.Ed. 1020 locations we believe our immediate 25. Some organized. already in fact resolution of the issue is are

443 practice viola remedy of the unfair labor sion therefore, type of the considered.28 tion must be at automatically enforcement entitled to un of the occurrence any after the time Amer practice.” remedy N.L.R.B. purpose aof must be “[T]he fair labor great F.2d Systems, Inc., 427 quo the Cable restoration of status to ican denied, U.S. Cir.), 400 (5th practicable; cert. the basic est however 448 957, extent (1970). restoring 266 purpose quo L.Ed.2d 27 is to S.Ct. 91 of status N.L.R.B., Corp. v. injury employees.” Gamble done Clark’s redress denied, Cir.), (6th cert. 845, 847 F.2d Local International 422 Ladies Garment L.Ed.2d U.S.App. 27 N.L.R.B., 91 S.Ct. U.S. Workers 126 400 Union employee normal D.C. denied, F.2d cert. 108 374 bargaining unit proposed in a 18

turnover 87 S.Ct. ground sufficiently for generally cited 1328 see cases refusing otherwise valid an to enforce a remedial order has therein. Where order,26 rights primary negating bargaining we believe effect of indigen extraordinary employees turnover fur rate current rather than thering them, defeats, Company’s 500-550 eff rather than ous to the strengthens our greatly ectuates,29 policies operations27 of the N.L.R.A. effects In the that the adverse instant of the enforcement conclusion practice bargaining viola labor Company’s unfair impose concerning representation upon and would a cur tion reasonably adequately employees, majority rent unit of vast be should employed by new of a of whom dissipated, prior were neither to the through election, at the time of labor practice meaningfully remedies violation nor af traditional utilization thereby fected enforcing, its commission. ob enforce Such are we ignore ment would N.L. necessity to bar viating resort rights protects right Furthermore, expressly R.A of em gaining order. ployees organizational employees large hired number refrain from commis subsequent if activities so desire.30 rapid post-unfair practice employee Franks Brothers Co. 26. See labor 702, 703-705, 64 S.Ct. turnover. U.S. (1944) ; v. Brown N.L.R.B. L.Ed. 1020 (7th 10(c) N.L.R.A., Specialty Co., 29. Section Cir. U.S.C. 160(c) (1970), only 1971). La- § authorizes require prac- bor Board to unfair labor July January 27. Between tice ac- violator “to take such affirmative * * * Company employed in- 149 different as will effectuate ”* * * building, policies dividuals at the 500-550 [the N.L.R.A.] being only average complement (emphasis supplied). Regarding work the reme- authority Board, 35-40. dial see cited eases 18, supra. in note cases, In some unfair labor employees Act, do not “[t]he interests of the 30. Section U.S.C. parallel and, necessarily (1970), provides, union’s there inter alia: fore, separately Employees right N. should be considered.” shall have to self- Drives, Inc., form, organization, join, L.R.B. v. 366- assist or (7th 1971), organizations, bargain collec- representatives tively through L.Ed.2d 185 their particularly apropos choosing, engage This admonition is in other own and to bar, purpose case since the never activities concerted represented majority substantial or mutual collective building unit, protection, have also aid shall or proffered any right if even all 17 of the or all authoriza refrain * * sup- accepted [emphasis tion cards were issue not suoh activities —an extremely plied] decided —and there has been . bargain proposed believe remedial, ing but not be order would Matter of the Conviction In the Laughlin, Appellant. e., James J. only punitive it would rather —i. LAUGHLIN,Appellant, James J. punish for its merely v. “It has been practice indiscretion. of America. UNITED STATES however, purpose established, that the Nos. rectify 71-1142. the harm Board remedies injured provide workers, not to done the Appeals, United Court of States against em punitive errant District of Columbia Circuit. measures ployers. power af to command ‘[T]he Argued June puni remedial, not firmative action is Decided Dec. NLRB, Rehearing 1,1973. Corp. March Republic Denied tive.’ Steel * * (1940).” Local U.S. 11, 1973. June Denied Certiorari Workers Garment International Ladies 93 S.Ct. N.L.R.B., 18 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Brother United See Local of Amer Carpenters

hood and Joiners

ica areWe L.Ed.2d 1 87, 6 grant enforcement

therefore unable proposed

the Labor Board’s Board the Labor order of

The remedial respect enforced, except hereby bargain- imposing portions a direct

those Company.31

ing obligation upon remanded

case is otherwise an to schedule for it

with instructions

appropriate representation election building unit on expeditious basis.

Judgment accordingly. MILLER, Circuit K. Senior

WILBUR

Judge: II of the ma-

I from Section dissent

jority III and concur Section opinion,

thereof. 58, 1971 Inc., NLRB CCH 1(b) 2(c) 189 NLBB No. the Labor Sections slip op. 22,879 at 7-10. ¶ therefore be order must Co., Shape Ship Maintenance deleted. See

Case Details

Case Name: National Labor Relations Board v. Ship Shape Maintenance Co., Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Dec 1, 1972

Citation: 474 F.2d 434

Docket Number: 71-1849

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.