# National Labor Relations Board. v. Ensign Electric Division of Harvey Hubble, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 19, 1986 · 783 F.2d 1121

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8938483

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. ENSIGN ELECTRIC DIVISION OF HARVEY HUBBLE, INC., and United Steelworkers of America, Local 5925, AFL-CIO-CLC, Center on National Labor Policy, Inc., Amicus Curiae
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 19, 1986
- **Citations:** 783 F.2d 1121
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Haynsworth
- **Judges:** Chapman, Haynsworth, Murnaghan
- **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/8938483

## Opinion text

HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I adhere to my view expressed in dissent when this case was before us earlier, see *1124 767 F.2d at 1103 et seq., that Guiton should not be applied retroactively to make exercise of these super-seniority rights unlawful. Should I agree with my brothers on that score, however, I could not agree that the contract was unlawful on its face.
At the time the successive contracts were negotiated and executed and at the time of the layoffs, there was no relevant precedent holding such super-seniority provisions unlawful. Though the members of the National Labor Relations Board were divided on the subject, such precedents as there were supported the legality of the super-seniority clause.
Moreover, even after Guitón, the super-seniority provision is not unlawful on its face unless one knows or assumes that it extends super-seniority to one or more union officials who have no on-the-job responsibilities for contract administration. Thus I think that, if Guitón is to be applied retroactively, the six month limitations period is triggered by an actual layoff based upon a claim of super-seniority by a union official having no on-the-job responsibility for contract administration.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8938483. Public record. Not legal advice.