neochart v2 research

cases/29usc158/f-supp-792-1459-watson.case

Source: cases/29usc158/f-supp-792-1459-watson.case

Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp/volume_792/1459_01/index.html

Verbatim annotated passages

In making a Section 10(j) determination, the district court may not decide whether an unfair labor practice has actually occurred, because this ultimate determination is reserved for the board, subject to review by the court of appeals.

While interim bargaining is necessary to preserve the status quo, the latter part of the request reaches too far.

Exact source text

casedsl 1

case /f-supp/792/1459-01
  name Watson v. Moeller Rubber Products, Inc.
  cite 792 F. Supp. 1459 (1992)
  court United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi
  date 1992-04-30
  url catalog/cases/f-supp/volume_792/1459_01/index.html
  source ir/caselaw/f_supp_792.jsonl sha1=4730368a4319bd6d7cca8ce17fda4fbeace00d07 chars=36049

law 29usc158 (a)
  role background
  posture Historical section 10(j) temporary injunction while alleged successor-employer refusal remained pending at the Board.
  result mixed

element refusal-to-bargain : not-reached
  scope procedural
  variant interim-relief/successor-recognition-dispute
  theory section 10(j) interim bargaining
  fact @25252..25408 [supports] | On September 16, Union Staff Representative Rip Williamson responded to this letter with a request that Moeller Rubber recognize and bargain with the union.
  fact @25409..25479 [supports] | This request was refused in a letter from Brock dated October 8, 1991.
  rule @11246..11482 | In making a Section 10(j) determination, the district court may not decide whether an unfair labor practice has actually occurred, because this ultimate determination is reserved for the board, subject to review by the court of appeals.
  held @23449..23562 | While interim bargaining is necessary to preserve the status quo, the latter part of the request reaches too far.
  gloss The court orders temporary bargaining, not a final ULP finding. Its 1992 reasonable-cause approach is historical; no present injunction-standard claim is made.

misfit The active LAW file models section 8(a) merits, not section 10(j). This retained procedural record deliberately contributes no merits instance; partial denial concerned notice and compliance-affidavit relief.
misfit Result is from the perspective of the General Counsel or charging party asserting the employer unfair labor practice, not from the employer-petitioner’s appellate position.