Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
DETROIT PLASTIC MOLDING CO., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, 1975 — 519 F.2d 816 · caselaw · US
General
DETROIT PLASTIC MOLDING CO., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
519 F.2d 816·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1975
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
DETROIT PLASTIC MOLDING CO., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 74-2177.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 16, 1975.
James D. Tracy, Ronald J. Santo, John A. Entenman, Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, John D. Burgoyne, John F. De-penbrock, Jr., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before WEICK and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
[MAJORITY]
ORDER
This case is before the Court upon the petition of Detroit Plastic Molding Company for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board issued October 8, 1974, and reported at 213 NLRB No. 120. The Board has cross-applied for enforcement of its order.
It was the finding of the Board that the company violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act in that during the election campaign it engaged in certain coercive activities which violated the Act, making it impossible to have a free and unhindered election, and causing the union to lose the election.
While it appears that some of the findings of the Administrative Law Judge, adopted by the Board, are arguably unsupported, the Court is of the opinion that many of the findings of the Administrative Law Judge are supported by substantial evidence and fully justified the conclusion that the company violated the Act.
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the petition for review be and the same is hereby denied, and that the order of the Board be and it is hereby enforced.