# Bromine Division, Drug Research, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · April 28, 1980 · 621 F.2d 806

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466724

## Case

- **Full name:** BROMINE DIVISION, DRUG RESEARCH, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 28, 1980
- **Citations:** 621 F.2d 806; 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2370; 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 18177
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Keith, Kennedy, Martin
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9466724

## Opinion text

ORDER
Petitioner Drug Research, Inc., seeks review of the Board’s order and the Board seeks enforcement of its order determining that Petitioner engaged in various unfair labor practices.
The Board found that, pending resolution of Company challenges to ballots cast in a representation election, the Company unlawfully refused to rehire two employees whose ballots had been challenged on the ground that they lacked a reasonable expectation of reemployment; that following certification of the Union as collective bargaining representative, the Company refused to recognize and bargain with the Union; that the unit employees went out on strike to protest the Company’s unlawful refusal to bargain; that following the unfair labor practice strikers’ unconditional offer to return to work, the Company unlawfully refused to reinstate four strikers; that the Company unilaterally granted wage increases after the Union had been certified as bargaining representative; and the Company interfered with strikers’ Section 7 rights by threatening strikers with criminal prosecution and by informing reinstated strikers that they were to be regarded as new employees.
The Board’s order requires the Company to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from in any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Affirmatively, the order requires the Company to make whole Sterling and Burgess for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the Company’s unfair labor practices; to offer the four unfair labor practice strikers immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions and to make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the Company’s refusal to reinstate them; to bargain collectively with the Union upon request; and to post the usual notice.
Upon consideration of the record and the arguments made to this Court, we are of the opinion that the Board’s order should be enforced.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466724. Public record. Not legal advice.