Legal Opinion · Dissent

Detroit Motion Picture Projectionists Union, Local 199 v. Employment Relations Commission

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided April 6, 1976No. Docket No. 23702Published

1DissentR. E. Noble, J.

I must respectfully dissent. I believe that doctrines limiting this Court’s review of Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) decisions should not be invoked to let stand a clearly erroneous legal conclusion.

Defendant 96 Grand Corporation, owned by a four-person partnership named Krim Enterprises, leased a movie theater in Farmington and approached plaintiff, a union representing movie *462projectionists, with an invitation to bargain over projectionists’ terms and conditions of employment. In December, 1972, the parties reached a temporary oral agreement concerning wages to be paid…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. National Labor Relations Board v. KatzSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. National Labor Relations Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. American Ship Building Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. National Labor Relations Board v. Insurance Agents' International UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  5. National Labor Relations Board v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967

4 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