# National Labor Relations Board v. Heck's, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 4, 1968 · 390 F.2d 655

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/279102

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. HECK’S, INC., Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 4, 1968
- **Citations:** 390 F.2d 655; 67 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2385; 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8529
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Boreman, Butzner, Jones
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/279102

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM:
The National Labor Relations Board moved pursuant to § 10(e) of the Labor Act [ 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e)] for enforcement
pendente lite
of the Board’s orders directing Heck’s, Incorporated, to bargain in good faith, to cease and desist from continuing to commit unfair labor practices, to post appropriate notices, and to reinstate an employee.
1
To obtain temporary relief under § 10(e), the Board must establish reasonable cause to believe the act has been violated, and it must appear from the circumstances of the case that the remedial purposes of the act will be frustrated unless relief
pendente lite
is granted. NLRB v. Aerovox Corp., 389 F.2d 475 (4th Cir., Dec. 20, 1967). We conclude that the Board has not met this standard and deny its motion.
The charge that the company violated § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the act [29 U.S. C. § 158(a) (5) and (1)] by its refusal to recognize and bargain in good faith raises in part the same issues that were decided adversely to the Board in NLRB v. Heck’s Inc., 386 F.2d 317 (4th Cir., Oct. 12, 1967).
*656
The § 8(a) (1) charges involve interrogation of employees with regard to their union sympathy, threatened reprisals, and interference with employees in 1964 and 1965 in connection with the same organization campaign that led to the § 8(a) (5) and (1) charges. While the charges are not inseparable, they are closely connected and we believe that both issues should be considered together when this case is heard on its merits.
In denying the motion, we, of course, do not intimate an opinion on the merits. We simply hold that the Board has not shown the necessity for
pendente lite
relief.
1
. The Board’s orders are found in Heck’s, Inc., 166 NLRB 38 (June 30, 1967), and Heck’s, Inc., 166 NLRB 32 (June 28, 1967). During oral argument, the Board withdrew its motion for
pendente lite
reinstatement of the employee.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/279102. Public record. Not legal advice.