National Business Forms, Inc., Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent, Andinternational Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, Afl-cio, Intervenor, Andsoutheastern Printing Specialties and Paper Products District Council S-7, Affiliated with the International Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union of North America, Afl-cio, Intervenor, 421 F.2d 1359 (6th Cir. 1970)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 421 F.2d 1359 (6th Cir. 1970) March 24, 1970

On Petition to Review an Order of National Labor Relations Board.

William M. Pate, Atlanta, Ga., Mitchell, Pate & Anderson, Atlanta, Ga., on the brief, for petitioner.

Nancy M. Sherman, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Corinna Lothar Metcalf, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on the brief, for respondent.

William A. McHugh, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., Adair, Goldthwaite, Stanford & Daniel, Atlanta, Ga., on the brief, for intervenor.

Before CELEBREZZE and BROOKS, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.


The above cause coming on to be heard upon the record, the briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel in open court, and the Court being duly advised:

Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the petition for review of the decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board, 176 NLRB No. 122, is hereby denied, except as to the provisions therein contained concerning back pay and, in this regard, the case is remanded to the National Labor Relations Board for further consideration in order to determine the applicability of Southwestern Pipe, Inc. 179 NLRB No. 52 (1969), decided by the Board subsequent to its decision and order in the present proceedings. See also N.L.R.B. v. Robert S. Abbott Publishing Company, 331 F.2d 209 (1964) (C.A.7).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.