# Chrysler Corporation, Eight Mile Road Stamping Plant v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · April 9, 1979 · 595 F.2d 364

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/364794

## Case

- **Full name:** CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Eight Mile Road Stamping Plant, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 9, 1979
- **Citations:** 595 F.2d 364; 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2837; 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15564
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Weick, Engel, Brown
- **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/364794

## Opinion text

ORDER
This proceeding is before us on the petition of Chrysler Corporation, Eight Mile Road Stamping Plant, to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board, dated January 19, 1977, reported at 227 NLRB No. 186 , finding that Chrysler violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 151
et seq.),
by maintaining solicitation and distribution rules which were facially invalid, and on the cross-application of the Board for enforcement of its order.
We are of the opinion that Chrysler’s Guide to Good Conduct Rules 17 and 18, involved in this proceeding, are not invalid on their face and are not vague, ambiguous and confusing.
The order of the Board is not supported by substantial evidence; in fact, there is not an iota of evidence that any employee of Chrysler at its Eight Mile Road Stamping Plant was ever confused or misled by the Rules, but in fact there was evidence that the employees over a period of years were abiding by the Rules in connection with solicitation and distribution of literature at the Company’s plant.
There was also evidence that the Regional Director of the Board had approved the Rules.
It is therefore ORDERED that the petition for review be and it is hereby granted, and the Board’s cross-application for enforcement be and it is hereby denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/364794. Public record. Not legal advice.