United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · 1992-04-30
29usc158: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)
Case and law context
Role: background; posture: Historical section 10(j) temporary injunction while alleged successor-employer refusal remained pending at the Board.; result: mixed; claim: (a)
Uncertainty
None recorded
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.
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.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 17
| Case | Covered employer | Covered employee and applicable retained status | Section 7 protected rights | Interference, restraint or coercion | Noncoercive expression under §8(c) | Narrow insignia-restriction justification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Watson v. Moeller Rubber Products, Inc. — 792 F. Supp. 1459 (1992) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · 1992 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 17
| Case | Domination, interference or support of a labor organization | Working-hours conference proviso | Conditional building-and-construction agreement allowance | Employment discrimination | Union-related discriminatory motivation | Same action absent unlawful motive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Watson v. Moeller Rubber Products, Inc. — 792 F. Supp. 1459 (1992) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · 1992 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–17 of 17
| Case | Conditional union-security proviso | Filed charges or given testimony | Discharge or other discrimination for Board participation | Employees collective-bargaining representative | Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Watson v. Moeller Rubber Products, Inc. — 792 F. Supp. 1459 (1992) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · 1992 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: background/procedural |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Watson v. Moeller Rubber Products, Inc. — 792 F. Supp. 1459 (1992) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · 1992 — not reached (29usc158: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / procedural claim: (a); theory: section 10(j) interim bargaining; subject: theory=section 10(j) interim bargaining The court orders temporary bargaining, not a final ULP finding. Its 1992 reasonable-cause approach is historical; no present injunction-standard claim is made. | interim-relief/successor-recognition-dispute | On September 16, Union Staff Representative Rip Williamson responded to this letter with a request that Moeller Rubber recognize and bargain with the union.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_792.jsonl#/f-supp/792/1459-01; Unicode character offsets [25252:25408] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ed7d04a7cb28f235026d6d7b085d40d7deca2112fb0461aaa25edb8d0795edeb.This request was refused in a letter from Brock dated October 8, 1991.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_792.jsonl#/f-supp/792/1459-01; Unicode character offsets [25409:25479] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ed7d04a7cb28f235026d6d7b085d40d7deca2112fb0461aaa25edb8d0795edeb.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_792.jsonl#/f-supp/792/1459-01; Unicode character offsets [11246:11482] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ed7d04a7cb28f235026d6d7b085d40d7deca2112fb0461aaa25edb8d0795edeb.While interim bargaining is necessary to preserve the status quo, the latter part of the request reaches too far.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_792.jsonl#/f-supp/792/1459-01; Unicode character offsets [23449:23562] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ed7d04a7cb28f235026d6d7b085d40d7deca2112fb0461aaa25edb8d0795edeb. |