# 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/9471844

## 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 Wellford
- **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/9471844

## Opinion text

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the conclusion set out by Judge Merritt that Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645 , 102 S.Ct. 2071 , 72 L.Ed.2d 398 (1982), neither argued before nor called to the attention of the panel which considered this case prior to the en banc hearing, precludes our consideration of what I believe to be inadequate and insufficient findings and conclusion of the Board to justify the extraordinary remedy of ordering petitioner to bargain with the intervenor union, which lost the election in controversy.
To the extent the Board considered the failure of the petitioner to raise wages of its employees while the election campaign was in progress, but later did so consistent with petitioner’s commitment, as a basis for the bargaining order, I must respectfully dissent. I also cannot agree that the “possibility of erasing the effects of past practices and of ensuing a fair election (or a fair rerun) by the use of traditional remedies ... is slight” in this case. NLRB v. Gissel, 395 U.S. 575, 614 , 89 S.Ct. 1918, 1940 , 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969) (as cited in footnote 1 of the majority opinion). Rather, for the reasons set out in my dissent in the panel opinion in this case filed August 23, 1983, I would find no substantial basis for concluding that a fair election cannot be held utilizing traditional Board remedies.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471844. Public record. Not legal advice.