# Southern Moldings, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · March 8, 1984 · 728 F.2d 805

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471843

## Case

- **Full name:** SOUTHERN MOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 8, 1984
- **Citations:** 728 F.2d 805; 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3325; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24717
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Krupansky
- **Judges:** Lively, Edwards, Engel, Keith, Merritt, Kennedy, Martin, Jones, Contie, Krupansky, Wellford
- **Cited by:** 15 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/9471843

## Opinion text

KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that pursuant to Woelke Romero Framing, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 456 U.S. 645 , 102 S.Ct. 2071 , 72 L.Ed.2d 398 (1982), this court is without jurisdiction to review the Board’s compliance with the Supreme Court mandate *807 enunciated in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel, 395 U.S. 575 , 89 S.Ct. 1918 , 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969) in imposing the contested bargaining order in this case because the petitioner failed to assert this issue during the proceedings before the Board. I further concur with the majority that this Court has jurisdiction to review the Board’s determination that Southern Moldings Inc. committed the unfair labor practices with which it was charged and that the administrative record incorporates substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that Southern Moldings Inc. violated the Act.
I write separately because I am not in accord with the obiter dictum contained in the majority opinion’s penultimate sentence namely that the United States v. Gissel criteria was satisfied. Having initially concluded that this very issue was beyond the court’s authority to review in light of the pronounced jurisdictional defect it is inappropriate for the court to thereafter comment on the merits of the assignment of error which was improperly submitted for appellate review.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471843. Public record. Not legal advice.