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.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LOCAL 742, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Respondent, 1975 — 519 F.2d 815 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LOCAL 742, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Respondent
519 F.2d 815·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
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LOCAL 742, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Respondent.
No. 74-2383.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 16, 1975.
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., A. Donald Rhoads, Washington, D. C., Bernard Levine, Director, Region 8, N.L.R.B., Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner. .
Ronald H. Janetzke, Kettering, Ohio, for respondent.
Before WEICK, CELEBREZZE and McCREE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY]
ORDER
The application for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board, reported at 213 N.L.R.B. # 19 having come on to be heard, and it appearing that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board’s finding that the union caused some of the employees to refuse to work overtime for the purpose of compelling the company to accept respondent’s bargaining demands, and that the Board was correct in its determination that respondent thereby engaged in a strike without complying with the requirements of Section 8(d)(4) of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(d)(4) and refusing to bargain collectively within the meaning of § 8(b)(3) of the Act, upon consideration, it is ordered that the order be, and it hereby is, enforced.