Court Opinion

ID: 9468998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:29:00.648446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:09.425186
License: Public Domain

On Denial of Rehearing *
GARTH, J.
I would grant the petition for rehearing because I agree with the petitioner and with Judge Van Dusen’s dissent that the panel result here is in direct conflict with our decision in NLRB v. K & K Gourmet Meats, 640 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1981). Moreover, the Board’s reasoning in issuing a bargaining order here, rather than ordering the preferred remedy of an election, is not only contrary to the teaching of NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918 (1969), but in the words of Judge Van Dusen it is “nothing less than a perversion of [Gissel] ...” (Van Dusen, J., dissenting, supra at p. 1216). In essence, by upholding the Board’s bargaining order, the panel has virtually given carte blanche to the Board to impose bargaining orders when the spirit moves it, and to do so in complete disregard of Gissel.
Because I have previously expressed myself on this subject in a number of opinions, the most recent of which are NLRB v. Permanent Label Corp., 657 F.2d 512, 528 (3d Cir. 1981) (en banc) (Garth, J., dissenting); NLRB v. Eastern Steel, 671 F.2d 104, 112 (3d Cir. 1982) (Garth, J., dissenting), and NLRB v. National Car Rental, 672 F.2d 1182, 1191 (3d Cir. 1982) (Garth, J., dissenting), I see no need to repeat my views which I have set forth in those writings.
I would therefore grant the petition for rehearing in this case.
WEIS, J., concurs.

 HUNTER, J., would grant rehearing.