Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

S & W Motor Lines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, and Teamsters Local Union No. 391, Intervenor

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided May 1, 1980No. 79-1147Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partK. K. Hall, Circuit Judge

I

I do not agree with the majority that an employer, caught up in the throes of economic uncertainty associated with a strike, should not be forced to raise a “foredoomed” issue for bargaining unless the alleged violation under § 8(a)(1) “is incontestable from the very outset.” While the purpose behind this holding is apparently to protect employers from being punished twice, under both § 8(a)(1) and (5), for the good faith implementation of purportedly legal wage payments, I think this misconstrues the rationale underlying both NLRB v. Rubatex, 601 F.2d 147 (4th Cir. 1979), and Aero-Motive…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. National Labor Relations Board v. Acme Industrial Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1965
  3. Cone Mills Corporation v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1969
  4. National Labor Relations Board v. Whitin MacHine WorksCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1954
  5. National Labor Relations Board v. Rubatex CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1979

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API