# National Labor Relations Board v. Cincinnati Local 271

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · April 16, 1974 · 495 F.2d 763

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/318572

## Case

- **Full name:** National Labor Relations Board, the United States Playing Card Company, Intervenor v. Cincinnati Local 271, Lithoggraphers & Photoengravers International Union, Afl-Cio
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 16, 1974
- **Citations:** 495 F.2d 763; 86 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2655; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9136
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 1 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/318572

## Opinion text

495 F.2d 763
86 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2655 , 74 Lab.Cas. P 10,052
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, The United
States Playing Card Company, Intervenor,
v.
CINCINNATI LOCAL 271, LITHOGGRAPHERS & PHOTOENGRAVERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, Respondents.
No. 73-1922.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued April 4, 1974.
Decided April 16, 1974.
Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Richard A. Cohen, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on brief, for petitioner.
Harold S. Freeman, Gregory L. Hellrung, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, for intervenor, The United States Playing Card Co.; Dinsmore, Shohl, Coates & Deupree, Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel.
Eugene Cotton, Russell Woody, Chicago, Ill., on brief, for respondents; Cotton, Watt, Jones, King & Bowlus, Chicago, Ill., of counsel.
Before CELEBREZZE, McCREE and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
1
This cause came on to be heard on the record and the briefs and arguments of counsel. Upon due consideration thereof, the court is of the opinion that while it might have been better to defer the issues therein to arbitration, the Board's failure to do so does not amount to an abuse of discretion, and it further appearing to the court that the decision and order of the Board, reported at 204 NLRB No. 65 , are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, now therefore
2
It is ordered that the order of the Board be and it is hereby enforced.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/318572. Public record. Not legal advice.