Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Metlox Manufacturing Company v. National Labor Relations Board

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 5, 1967No. 20299_1Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBarnes, Circuit Judge

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the petitioner Metlox did not bargain in good faith when it restricted the Union auditor to a “yes or no” conclusion as to whether the previously submitted profit and loss statements were “true”. I dissent from the enforcement of the Board’s order in its present form.

The parties here are in substantial accord as to the applicable law. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 4 Cir., 224 F.2d 869, stands for the proposition that where an employer claims inability to pay, he may be required to substantiate that claim. The Court in Truitt indicated that whether…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Sinclair Refining Company v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
  2. United Fire Proof Warehouse Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1966
  3. Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966
  4. National Labor Relations Board v. Truitt Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API