National Labor Relations Board v. Streamway Division of the Scott & Fetzer Company

plaintiff in his attempt to enforce 1983. §

Moreover, the Court notes that the de-

fendants were not unfairly prejudiced by

the award of fees for these hours. The that,

defendants never asserted due to the

plaintiff’s failure to initially invoke §

they labored under a belief that

would not support an award of fees for

those Indeed, hours. the defendants failed

to address the issue until directed to do so

by the Court during oral argument.3 In

sum, the Court concludes that the district

court acted within its discretion in award-

ing fees for the hours expended prior to the

filing of the complaint. amended

In accordance with the foregoing,

lower court’s order awarding attorney’s hereby

fees is AFFIRMED.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD, Petitioner,

STREAMWAY DIVISION OF the SCOTT COMPANY, Respondent. FETZER

No. 80-1507.

United Appeals, States Court of

Sixth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 1982.

Decided Oct. 1982.

As Amended Nov. Similarly, party poten- 15(c), Accordingly, neither considered the sions of Rule Fed.R.Civ.P. applicability provi- inexpedient tial of the “relation back” finds it Court do so. Representation to the In-Plant (“the Committee”), which

Committee established. organized had and Company Company found that Board also The Act 8(a)(1) of the violated section concerning its interrogating deny enforce- union sentiments. We ment. & Fetzer Division

Streamway of Scott faucets and sells water Company produces Westlake, its plant. valves at Ohio and Workers, by attempts Two United Auto 1976 and in November again October for majority support failed to obtain efforts to be the collective its certified as pro- for bargaining agent Company’s The and maintenance employees.1 duction objections no the conduct Union filed election, and no unfair labor either or after emerged, either before charges those elections. March, the Company established Moore, Gen. Deputy Elliott Associate the structure of the Commit- and outlined B., G., Counsel, for Washington, N. L. R. D. in a embodied According tee. directions

petitioner. working a hourly employees, to all notice Flinker, Duvin, John C. Flinker & Cahn was intended to be established Ohio, Co., Cleveland, for respondent. develop Company’s part program readily accessible channels of “more WEICK, ENGEL, Judge, Before Circuit Manufacturing Opera- within munications COHN,* Judge, Senior Circuit and District provide “to between tions” and coordination Judge. plant management.” and personnel ENGEL, Judge. Circuit goal of expressed The the Committee orderly process provide yet The Labor “to an informal National Relations pro- and (“the communicating plans Board”) petitions Company for for enforcement problem grams; defining identifying and reported decision and order at 249 NLRB suggestions and ideas eliciting No. The relief areas and granted order accomplish this operations.” To improving consistent with Board’s determination end, to meet. working committee was Streamway Division of the Scott one de- (“the general meeting one Company Initially, Fetzer had vio- Company”) four 8(a)(1) partmental meeting in (2) lated sections of the National each was to be held (“the Act”), Company Act departments Labor Relations 29 U.S.C. include The committee was to (2), by dominating and in- each month. man- representatives,2 and terfering giving eight employee formation of * Cohn, representatives from to be elected Avem District 2. Four Honorable United States Assembly employees, Judge Michigan, categories sit- for the Eastern six District representative ting by designation. each cate- one more than gory; Machine to be from the two were elected Shop; “Polish was to be elected from the one petitions these The Union filed election on Department; was to be and one and Buff’ when the dates. The record does not disclose Department. I the “P & held; elected from Control” held in first election was the second was January 1978. agement personnel would be present written oral reports management, both general departmental meetings.3 and sessions were tape recorded. At the time, the representatives same of PRADCO planned avowedly that the all responses assured would “provide to as many em- kept were to confidential possible the opportunity of direct personnel tapes. PRADCO had access input.” It rotating forth therefore set report written indicated PRADCO’s that no of schedule initial terms to served which effort was made to link names with faces or months, varied from three to six with all any to identify participants. terms thereafter to be three months in du- employee ration. To maximize participa- claimed, found, It was and the Board tion program, in the employee no was questioned were employees improperly con- serve, term, other than the initial for more cerning their attitudes towards unions dur- than three months in a year. calendar At ing survey.4 the course of the PRADCO At the of time the second UAW certification time, the approximately same for several election in February the Committee commencing early July, weeks an em- operating been several for months. ployee distributed authorization cards of Company The sought also to communi- the International Molders Allied Workers cate employees by with its retaining Per- Union. sonnel Development Research and Corpora- unfair practice charges Several (“PRADCO”) tion to conduct an attitude Company filed the in October clerical, survey managerial, of produc- and November, January, 1978 and in 1979.5 tion and maintenance employees August, Judge The Administrative Law found that 1978. Before the beginning survey, the the 'Company dominated interfered president a meeting held Committee, with the he which determined asked employees to rep- be candid with the organization was a labor as defined in sec- resentatives. The top nine executives of 2(5) 152(5). tion of 29 He § U.S.C. met Company separately with a PRAD- inquiries by found further PRAD- CO representative; all other in- employees, regarding interroga- CO Unions constituted cluding production and maintenance work- ers, tion in violation of section groups met in of five to seven in an effort survey 8(a)(1) the Act. employee adopted reactions to the The Board policies. Company’s PRADCO made both on May ALJ’s order 1980. Management representatives 3. general only A. The real man had meetings were to include the Vice President of going asked us we were out door was Operations, Manufacturing Manager, I P & how we felt about a union. Manager Manager. Control and the Personnel anyone question? reply Did to that Q. departmental meetings The various were to in- why, I A. I did. asked him and he said Operations clude either the Vice President of Union, because I told him I I was for Manufacturing Manager and the or the Vice why asked, he asked him he said noth- Operations P President ager. and & I Control Man- ing. Is that the that was comment made Q. about a Union? reported exchanges 4. Two A. Yes. representatives Union; regarding PRADCO Appendix Judge (“ALJ”) the Administrative Law found both statements credible. One testi- regarding There is no evidence on this representative “something fied that asked election whether a third certification was held people being unhappy, about and is that following distribution of authorization cards. why getting Ap- we were a union in there.” charges The unfair labor were uncon- pendix at 43. She stated she did not recall the nected to either of the earlier election cam- precise used, language “[b]asically but I what charges by paigns, preceded which several saying recall him was —is that the reason that months. we felt we needed a Union because of all things we had mentioned.” Id. Another employee reported following exchange: employers regarding

I conditions of work. “dealing” The term in the Act was inter- prohibits of the Act domi- preted in NLRB v. Cabot Carbon organiza- nation or of a “labor 3 L.Ed.2d 1175 U.S. S.Ct. upheld tion.” the ALJ’s deter- Carbon, In Cabot mination that the Committee formed mittee had been established and endowed was a organization” “labor responsibility grievances. to handle in section defined 29 U.S.C. re- proposals It also made discussed 152(5), provides: specting variety aspects a wide of the organization” The term “labor means employee relationships, including company’s kind, or any agency classifications, job job bidding, seniority, employee representation committee or time, records, cards, make-up overtime plan, in which participate and vacations, leave, systems, merit sick which exists for purpose, in whole or like. The committee was instrumental part, dealing of with employees con- altering several conditions of work.7 Mem- cerning grievances, disputes, wages, labor bers of the local committee formulated rates of pay, employment, hours of proposals they presented list of which di- conditions of work. the Director of Industrial Rela- rectly to (emphasis added). We think there is little Be- corporate tions at the central office. question that if it is a organization” “labor include powers expressly cause its did not Act, under section the Commit- the Fifth held that “bargaining,” Circuit tee was Company. dominated It was the committee was not a labor expressly mandated Company, and NLRB, F.2d 281 Cabot Co. v. 256 Carbon the Company composition controlled its short, 1958). In it found that Therefore, meetings. its we it think fol- with” with “bar- “dealing synonymous was lows that if the Committee was in fact a with” and was therefore limited to gaining organization, labor was guilty actually engaged in col- committees 8(a)(2). of violation of section See NLRB bargaining. lective Co., H Mfg. v. & H Plastics 389 F.2d 678 1968). are, however, We convinced Justice disa- reversing, Whittaker not, that the Committee was any under Co., NLRB v. Carbon 360 greed. Cabot Act, enlightened view of the organi- labor 203, 1015, 79 3 L.Ed.2d 1175 U.S. S.Ct. zation as above defined. (1958). that the final text emphasized He organization rejected Because a labor is the Act more restric- expressly defined as of “organization an have defined purposes language kind” for tive which would engaging organizations groups the recurrent is wheth- labor er that bargaining;8 an exists to “deal” with collective he concluded ...; 158, periods system provide longer 29 U.S.C. to notice bid; provides: permit employ- concerning jobs up for to early early report (a) on week- ees to and leave It unfair labor shall an for an ends; employer— for allocat- to establish an annual basis overtime; ing to in the roofs install vents (2) of warehouses.” NLRB v. Cabot Carbon to dominate or interfere with the forma- 1015, n.6, 203, n.6, organiza- 3 U.S. 208 79 S.Ct. 1019 tion or administration of 360 tion or contribute financial or other L.Ed.2d 1175 Provided, subject to it: to rules and regulations published by made and the Board rejected argument 8. The also an Court title, pursuant 156 of section this an em- organi- labelling employee committees as labor ployer prohibited permit- shall not be from prevent employers employ- zations “would ting employees during confer him with discussing mutual interest ees from matters of working pay hours without loss of time or relationship, concerning employment ” abridge speech freedom of .... would thus 79 at 1024. It stated 360 U.S. at S.Ct. “Among things, respondents’ plant other offi- speech; order did not bar such agreed Employee requests the Board’s cials instead, employers “merely precludefd] change company plant seniority from a to a

the term on “dealing” broadly should be more served as both “advisor” Finding construed. the “Committee as a means of communication for policy and to,’ ‘responsibility undertook the and did aggregate sys- effect of a employees. ” grievances,’ ‘handle 360 U.S. at tem of several committees considered S.Ct. at Justice Whittaker concluded Chemicals, Sharpies in NLRB v. 209 F.2d plain that “it is as words can say that these 1954), where our court found existed, committees part, least in for the em- part “single the committees were purposes ‘of dealing employers con- ployee representation plan,” which “afford- ’ cerning grievances .... This brings alone securing a means of ed the these squarely committees within the statu- griev- satisfaction of their respondent ” tory definition of organizations.’ ‘labor improvement working ances and of their Id. conditions,” and therefore were labor or- Justice Whittaker went on to observe at 652. ganizations. Id. meetings consisted of a series of time, logic experience At the same “proposals requests with respect early under the Act since these cases dictate covering matters nearly scope the whole commu that not all efforts to the employment relationship.” Id. at employees concerning company nicate with Although S.Ct. at 1022. Justice Whit- personnel policy pain are forbidden on taker stressed the continuous course of con- violating overly the Act. An broad con tacts between the committee and both local struction of the statute would be as de management, central and stated that objects ignor the as the Act as structive of “dealing” making often involves recommen- Thus there is ing provision entirely. dations, limitations, he did not indicate the particular logic Judge force in the of John

if any, upon meaning “dealing” un- Wisdom, dissenting in N.L.R.B. v. Minor Supreme der the statute. Because the 177, 182 (5th Mfg. Walton 289 F.2d Cir. issue, spoken Court has not further on this 1961): the question of how much interaction is my To mind an inflexible attitude of necessary dealing before is found is unre- employee toward committees de- hostility solved. the Act. It erects an iron curtain feats quick Our circuit has been to find employer employees, penetr- between “advisory company committees” were domi- bargaining agent of a only able organizations nated labor where in fact a union, one, preventing if there is certified pattern dealing example, existed. For decent, honest, development con- Shoe, NLRB v. General 192 F.2d 504 manage- relationship structive between 1954), committees, including a series of encourages ment and labor. The Act col- Advisory an Committee and a Grievance should, bargaining, lective as it in accord- Committee, were set up myri- consider The Act policy. ance with national does ad of employment conditions. Our court membership in encourage compulsory supported found substantial evidence The effect of the organization. a labor finding Board’s that “the effect of the five force policy Board’s here is to nominally separate committees is that of a regardless organization, to form a labor single employee representation plan dealing in the of the wishes of normally subject with all matters if is so much as an particular plant, there collective bargaining.” Id. We found that em- employer intention an to allow Advisory was itself aslabor on to confer with ployees when viewed the back- touch, ground matter that can be said presented, evidence because it “han- slightly, “general dled welfare”. suggestions questions,” and it however ny’s proviso dominating, interfering supporting contention that to section with or 8(a)(2), supra, allowing employees Congress such see note 2 committees which has employers, precludes finding organizations.” defined to be labor We think confer with analysis Compa- apply committee is a labor the same to the would Carbon, many years company For nothing gaining. or in There is Cabot in har- and the committee have worked Management the Labor to the benefit of wrong mony purpose for an other law makes employees. permit with em- To the Board to together” “to work employer an outside relationship There this because ployees for the welfare of all. is abort over, wants to take in the face nothing wrong provided that the com- union — and em- lack of substantial evidence of domina- through employer mittee tion, would be a disservice to the organi- work is not in fact a labor Act well to the which the meaning zation within the of Sections protect. ... and and is not used seeks employer infringe right on labor’s Federal-Mogul at 204-205. In 379 F.2d self-government rights and other in viola- Distribution Center Divi- Corp., Coldwater tion 8(a)(1). of Section NLRB, 1968), 394 F.2d 915 sion it was shown that committee mem- where similar considerations have in- Somewhat compensated by bers were fluenced our circuit and decisions of both meetings and that the com- spent the Board itself. cases Two Sixth Circuit by- had no formal constitution or mittee whether considering organizations dues, court held laws and did not collect our recent were dominated illustrate our more for control potential it was not the meaning attitude toward the of section “It is that the Act declared unlawful. 8(a)(2) of the Act. Plastics v. Modern actually activities un- management’s when NLRB, 1967), our 379 F.2d 201 employees’ of the integrity dermine joined a of circuits indicat- minority court in deal- independence freedom of choice and ing that rela- the adversarial model of labor employer that such activities ing with their the court tions is an anachronism. There Act.” proscriptions within the fall rejected finding organiza- a Board that an at 921. F.2d company merely tion was dominated Federal-Mogul pre- Plastics and Modern organiza- because of the weakness of the organiza- of a labor suppose the existence no dues and tion. committee received domination, which is not tion and consider operate by- did not under a constitution or indi- inquiry They of our here.9 the focus company paid laws. The for food and drink however, willing to cate, circuit is our compensated and committee members statute interpretation of the reject rigid a spent attending meetings. These employ- whether the instead consider facts, held, the Board indicated expres- employee free er’s behavior fosters of the circuit domination committee. Our requires. as the Act sion and choice disagreed, observing strength committee, it were truly weakness of the if inter- generally the Board has Although mat- representative employee, of the was a organizations” term “labor preted the ter or to the of little concern to the Board recognizes it too broadly,10 itself; Act the real was whether with the em- may committees communicate company dominated the decisions of the violating Act. In Gener- without ployer in Modern Plastics committee. Our court American Federa- Corporation al Foods strong policy reasons for encour- indicated Millers, and Its AFL-CIO tion of Grain aging cooperation: (1977), the NLRB No. 122 Local that committees established Act is to foster Board found prime purpose

A of the organizations. were not labor peace through employer collective bar- industrial See, Life, e.g., Sea Inc. and Construction has construed 9. At least one commentator Union, 368, 175 NLRB Local Laborer’s “cooperation” Plastics and other General Modern cases (1969). suggest illegal domina- No. 168 a new standard for tion, See upon based the intent to coerce. Note, Sup- New Standards for Domination and port 8(a)(2), Under Section L.J. 82 Yale (1973). 519-525 teams, standards,” The company regulations, had established divided and the com- team, according job assignments. Each re- actually mittee made recommendations consensus, acting by job made assignments, garding employment. Clearly, conditions of assigned job rotations and scheduled over- then, communication between a time. Each team meetings to discuss management does not itself bestow la- topics such a compensation system a upon group. bor status objectives of each team or group within precisely Our facts here do not fit A employees. psychologist was hired to either or within those of Gen- Cabot Carbon improve among internal communications Mercy-Memorial, supra. Foods and eral team members build “trust levels” Nevertheless, an examination of teams, among the and members discussed as a whole satisfies us that the limited conditions of work such at compensation functions of the Committee here more meetings. Notwithstanding the facial closely resemble those in the latter deci- similarity activity between this and the lan- Foods, As in sions. General of the guage adopted the Board part company plan was a to determine trial finding examiner’s the teams regarding working attitudes con- were not organizations. Although problems ditions and other in an accurate examiner stressed that the committees were way, Company’s for the self- effective merely administrative em- subdivisions of enlightenment, rather than a method by ployees and did not serve in a representa- pursue which to a course Al- dealings. tive he capacity, significant also found that: we though acknowledge that the difference many Unlike of the cases cited between communication of ideas and Counsel, Charging Party and the General dealings seemingly course of times is the teams herein were not established to indistinct, believe, nevertheless, we incipient head off organizing drives is vital here. they outside unions nor did come into as a result of any

.existence unrest in the Although Cabot Carbon cautions bargaining unit which was sensed Re- reading “dealing,” restrictive of the term spondent. active, ongoing it involved a more associa- 231 NLRB No. 122 at 1234. tion between and employees, connotes, dealing which the term than is presenting A case facts similar to present here. The Board offered no evi- Mercy-Memorial those here is Hospital Cor dence of a continuous interaction between poration and Local Employees Service employer and committee other than recital Union, AFL-CIO, International 231 NLRB to “allow em- purpose committee’s No. 182 There a group desig about, question, complain or raise nated to investigate grievances and to ren concerning employ- matters conditions of decisions, der but the Board nonetheless ment,” Petitioner’s Brief at and that the determined that it organi was not a labor actually complained. Id. at 4. Again zation. the Board adopted determi the reach of be- Whatever Cabot Carbon examiner, nations the trial who in turn case, the facts of that we not think yond do accepted the employer’s argument that applies accept it here. We cannot the committee existed not to deal with suggestion Board’s that Cabot Carbon give employees but to a voice in resolving grievances broadly em should be read so as to call fellow ployees. important discussing employ- More for our purposes group issues related to here, the examiner determined that organization. ment a labor organization committee was not a labor factors convince us that the Several though policy

even statement provided The organization. committee is not a labor that “the committee does have the right continuous rotation of Committee members obligation to recommend to the many employees participate personnel director of and all to ensure that other adminis rules, closely trative heads .. . more any changes in makes the resemble Committee speaking directly 1968) (company’s to intention that groups individual, rather management on an than a committee “serve as a channel of communi- representative, basis as in General Foods. precluded finding cation” it recog- Moreover, the ALJ determined he could nized, from, recognition and then withdrew find no or anti-union ani- employer hostility bargaining agent). committee as case, present mus in the even inference We here have recognize that the facts from circumstantial evidence. The Board precisely recognize, arisen before. We also connecting offers no evidence the creation however, Board, as does the that at some organizational the committee to the drive point a literal translation of section will occurred months afterward. very purposes frustrate the of the Act it- Board in General Foods considered whether This, think, self. we has occurred here. anti-union sentiment existed at the time the Two have certification elections occurred Similarly, committees formed. in the span litiga- of time covered this Plastics, supra, both Modern and Federal- charges tion. No unfair labor were filed. Mogul, supra, our court considered lack of Those provided elections anti-union animus to be a factor in the opportunity with uncoerced to make an determination that the activities employer’s intelligent quo choice between the status comported purposes with the of the Act. alternative benefits of a formal neither Finally, employees, nor the contract, bargain- after collective reached Committee, nor, ascertain, so far as we can of their ing through organization local the union involved in two certification elec- employees have exer- Clearly choice. those tions, seems to have considered that cised their option dispense bene- even remotely resembled a labor fit collective bargaining the formal ordinary in the sense of the a labor agreement through fact, quite contrary appears term. machin- provides Just as the Act democratic the assumption among have been all who ery protect employees’ choice to bar- must indeed have been familiar with its gain equally protects so it collectively, operation. If the Committee were fact a benefits, if employees’ right forego those labor organization meaning within the judgment in their their interests are best its members or the on its There has been no served this course. might expected behalf have been to have Company hostility evidence of toward interposed this as a bar efforts to to.the no union and evidence seek certification of the UAW as collective exercise of em- itself interfered bargaining agent. No such action occurred ployee rights bargain collectively, unless here, and the election was held without might enlightened person- said that an objection, resulting incident and in the de- nel them to be content with the policy led feat of the Federal-Mogul, supra, union. | their choice. see quo. status This was We indicates unless are encour- no reason under the Act to disturb aged “in the mistaken belief that [a choice or to the scales it and in tip mittee truly representative and is] afford[s] them- favor of that which the an agency bargaining,” for collective no rejected. have twice selves choice, with employee interference essential violated, finding to a that the Act has been II occurs. 394 F.2d at 918.11 The Board of- found that Board also anyone fers no evidence that viewed the 8(a)(1) of a section Company guilty than a anything more commu- interrogation device. violation because of Cf. Cincinnati Gasket nicative PRADCO, NLRB, Packing Mfg. employees, through & v. 395 F.2d 268 certain Co. analysis by See Mer- 11. Our therefore is not altered Committee into a labor 1121; changed Corp., supra, Company cy-Hospital NLRB at fact that the vacation 231 Foods, supra, policy following 231 NLRB at 1235. discussions with the commit- General tee. An isolated incident does not convert 296 survey.12 Respondent course of the latter’s attitude While it is clear that would it say bargain

Suffice that there is a total ab- rather recognize not sence of evidence of actual or Ad- any independent organization, intended restraint employee rights under the expres- falls short of an ams’ statement must, assuming, even as we that the Board corporate intent to thwart em- sion properly testimony credited the of the em- ployees’ rights exercise of the ployees interrogation had in fact Therefore, by unlawful means. it is not place. taken court Our has often held that expression of unlawful animus as the simple interrogation unaccompanied by argues. General Counsel threats or other forms of coercion does not 249 NLRB No. 54 at 397. See, e.g. Hughes violate the Act. Hatch- & interrogation We must view the “as the NLRB, (6th er Inc. v. 393 F.2d 557 Cir. employee ques- must have understood 1972); NLRB, Bearing Company Lincoln v. tioning Hughes its ramifications.” (6th 1962). 311 F.2d 48 An employer Cir. Hatcher, supra, 393 F.2d at 563. When right speak has a with employees long so ALJ’s observations are considered an interrogation is not coercive. Lane interrogations nature of the actual NLRB, Drug Company 391 F.2d 812 and which were executed with place took 1968). As Judge Phillips observed in restraint, great not but Inc., NLRB v. Big Boy, Elias Brothers professional survey company, attitude 1963), F.2d 360 “[ijnfrequent, iso- that the effect readily probable can be seen lated and inquiries relatively innocuous employees was not to coerce to deter alone, small employees, standing number of exercising rights. interference, do not constitute restraint or by the find- This conclusion is buttressed meaning coercion within the of section ing that the record as a whole does not 8(a)(1) Act.” Id. at 364. also See employees reflect that the in fact felt inhib- NLRB Company, v. Tennessee Coach Employees ited the statements. testi- 1951). F.2d 546 union atti- questions concerning fied that Employees only testified were they atmosphere tudes were asked in a relaxed join asked if wished to they the Union had been confidentiality in which an air of because complaints.13 of their There is no only apparently assured but maintained evidence on the record that employees were A interviewer tes- throughout.14 PRADCO threatened, nor has a atmosphere hostile deliberately the interviewers at- tified that tending employee to inhibit choice been comfortable to tempted employees to make shown. The points only one indi- did encourage candor. The interviewers animus, cation of union being in cer- persons not even know the names of the tain anti-union comments made Steve testimony until the who had been asked Adams, a Company foreman. The use of circumstances, the hearing. Under such however, purposes, his statement for these altogether provide fails to substan- in complete findings is contradiction to the charges. tial evidence to of the ALJ rejecting that statement as such evidence: Enforcement is denied. employee particular 12. Section ed and that all em- U.S.C. 158(a)(1) provides: suggests answered. The Board meeting coerced at one some (a) It shall be an unfair labor for an ques- because tion; one answered the employer (1) with, to interfere restrain or — employee testified that the interview- rights coerce guaranteed in the exercise of response to the em- er asked in section 157 of this title .... supported ployee’s previous that she statement supra.

13. See note 3 employee testified that the Union. Another the is- than PRADCO raised rather questioned 14. One PRADCO about meeting. a third sue of the Union at inquiry unions testified that the direct- was not

COHN, District Judge. Wendy GEORGES, al., A. et I concur in the result reached in Part II Plaintiffs-Appellants,

of the panel opinion; I respectfully dissent I my Part I. believe colleagues give too weight little to the National Labor Re- CARNEY, Clifford M. Jean McNamara lations Board’s determination that the In- Toerpe, William Representation Plant Committee was a “la- Defendants-Appellees, organization” bor 2(5) defined in Section of the National Labor Relations 152(5). U.S.C. See N.L.R.B. v. Produc- Elections, Illinois State Plastics, Inc., tion Molded 451, 604 F.2d Intervening Defendant. 453-54 1979). My reading No. 82-2400. supports the Board’s conclusion that the committee was a labor organization as Appeals, United States Court of defined in interpreted Section by the Seventh Circuit. Supreme Court N.L.R.B. v. Cabot Carbon Sept. Submitted 1982. Co., (1959). 360 U.S. 203 See 249 N.L.R.B. Sept. 16, *. Decided 1982 (1980).

No. 54

However may much there be a need for fide,

“bona socially desirable joint employer-employee com-

mittee[s] something less than a

mittee[s] [are]

labor and something more

than a Study Great Books Group”, N.L.R.B.

v. Walton Manufacturing 289 F.2d 1961) (Wisdom, J., dissenting part), objective should not be

achieved by overly restricting the definition organization. Rather, believe, I

the test to emphasized is employer domi-

nation, 8(a)(1), (2) of the National

Labor Relations 158(a)(1), U.S.C. § N.L.R.B., See Modern Plastics Corp. v. 1967). F.2d 201 opinion prepared subsequently, *This was er’s deadline which if missed would have re- procedure sharply higher released on October printing This sulted in costs to the necessary possible in order to make it Board and could also have resulted in some the Board receiving of Election Commissioners of Du- absentee voters not their ballots in Page County print absentee ballots for the vote the election. September print- November election

Case Details

Case Name: National Labor Relations Board v. Streamway Division of the Scott & Fetzer Company

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Nov 5, 1982

Citation: 691 F.2d 288

Docket Number: 80-1507

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.