# Somerset Welding & Steel, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · April 2, 1993 · 987 F.2d 777

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483989

## Case

- **Full name:** SOMERSET WELDING & STEEL, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** April 2, 1993
- **Citations:** 987 F.2d 777; 300 U.S. App. D.C. 113; 142 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2356; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 6890
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Edwards
- **Judges:** Edwards, Williams, Henderson
- **Cited by:** 16 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/9483989

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding no adequate justification for Gissel order because “the Board did not adequately consider changes in management and employee turnover at the Company since the time of the election”
- declining to enforce bargaining order where “no reasoned justification therefor appearfed] in the Board’s order”
- declining to enforce bargaining order where "no reasoned justification therefor appear[ed] in the Board's order"

## Opinion text

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
This case must be remanded for further consideration, because the Board has thus far failed to justify a bargaining order remedy with the specific findings required by Avecor, Inc. v. NLRB, 931 F.2d 924, 934 (D.C.Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 912 , 116 L.Ed.2d 812 (1992). On remand, the Board must specifically address three issues: (1) whether Chairman Riggs’ statements violated the Act, and, if so, whether these violations support a remedial bargaining order; (2) why statements about possible plant closure made by supervisors Rush, Tims, Sr., Clyde, Pyle, and Berkley violated the Act, and, if they did, why these statements were sufficiently pervasive to justify a remedial bargaining order; and (3) whether the changes in management and employee turnover that have occurred since the occurrence of the violations have made a bargaining order unnecessary.
I concur only in the judgment of the court remanding this case for further consideration.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483989. Public record. Not legal advice.