National Labor Relations Board v. Dadourian E. Corporation, 24.

Citation138 F.2d 891
Decision Date03 November 1943
Docket NumberNo. 24.,24.
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. DADOURIAN EXPORT CORPORATION.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Roy Compton, of Chicago, Ill., and Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Associate Gen. Counsel, Howard Lichtenstein, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and David Findling, and Sanford H. Bolz, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Max J. Lovell, of New York City (Max Milstein, of New York City, on the brief), for respondent.

Before L. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

L. HAND, Circuit Judge.

This case comes before us upon a motion by the Board for an order "enforcing" its own "cease and desist" order, which directed the respondent to bargain collectively with a local of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the representative of all its "production workers engaged in processing, repairing, cleaning, shipping and packing." The respondent now admits that the Board selected an "appropriate unit" for bargaining, but argues that it should have included the employees of a wholly owned subsidiary, who did the same kind of work in the same plant; and, if that be not true, that four of the votes necessary to the majority on which the Board relied were procured by means which vitiated the consent of the employees who cast them. We need consider only the second of these objections.

The Board found that there were forty-six employees in the "appropriate unit," so that twenty-four were necessary to a majority. In fact twenty-seven signed, but of these the Board found that one had made "an effective revocation of a valid designation." Four of the remaining twenty-six appeared before the examiner as witnesses and testified that they were all unwilling to join the union, but that one, Capra, a fellow employee, who was organizing the plant for the C. I. O., told them to go to a room where there were a number of other employees, and that when they arrived he persuaded them to sign. They were all illiterate persons with only a most rudimentary acquaintance with English; and they described the means used to secure their signatures in the following terms. One, a woman, swore that Capra said to her: "You no sign, you no work, you no come to-morrow." Another, Solomon, swore that Capra said: "You are supposed to come in union; you cannot work in this place." A third, Slon, swore that he tried twice to escape from Capra, who twice "grabbed" his coat and "dragged him away"; and that when Slon said that he did not want to sign Capra had answered: "You can't work in here." The fourth, Blinder, swore that Capra had told him: "Everybody got to join the union; otherwise they would not be able to work here because" (of?) "the union." Capra was not called to deny this testimony; and, although one, Urwand, who was also present when the employees signed, said that he personally did not tell them that they must join, he was not questioned about Capra's activities as organizer.

We need not say how we should have felt obliged to decide, had the Board declared that it did not believe these witnesses; arguendo, we shall assume that we should have accepted its finding, regardless of the fact that the testimony stood uncontradicted. But it did not discredit them, and we must take what they said as true, since the Board disposed of the case on the theory that it was irrelevant to the issue of the union's right to act as a bargaining representative. To support this position the Board invoked our decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Dahlstrom Metallic Door Co., 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 756, 758; in which we had before us an offer of testimony that the union "organizers had threatened that initiation fees would be raised after recognition had been achieved, and that when the objective of a closed shop was obtained, non-members would lose their jobs." Page 757, of 112 F.2d. We held that it was not improper for the union to put that pressure upon hesitant employees, because it did no more than "explain the legitimate consequences of joining or remaining aloof." In National Labor Relations Board v. Karp Metal Products Co., 2 Cir., 134 F.2d 954 (...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • NLRB v. Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • January 14, 1966
    ...F.2d 407, 409-410 (1 Cir. 1959); N. L. R. B. v. James Thompson & Co., 208 F.2d 743, 745-748 (2 Cir. 1953); N. L. R. B. v. Dadourian Export Corp., 138 F.2d 891, 892-893 (2 Cir. 1943). Of late, however, the Board and two courts have recognized an exception to the rule that fraud on the part o......
  • Ambridge Motor Coach Co. Appeal
    • United States
    • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 6, 1950
    ...... . Appeal. from Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. . . . Reed, Ewing & ... the employees who had voted: National Labor Relations. Board v. A. J. Tower Co., 152 ... corporation organized for the purpose of furnishing certain. ... in National Labor Relations Board v. Dadourian Export. Corporation, 138 F.2d 891, 892, that:. ......
  • National Labor Relations Bd. v. James Thompson & Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • December 2, 1953
    ...Co., 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 756; National Labor Relations Board v. Karp, etc., Co., 2 Cir., 134 F.2d 954. 2 National Labor Relations Board v. Dadourian, etc., Corp., 2 Cir., 138 F.2d 891. 3 National Labor Relations Board v. G. H. Hess, 82 N.L.R.B. 463; National Labor Relations Board v. U. S. Rubb......
  • NLRB v. Niskayuna Consumers Cooperative
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • December 29, 1966
    ...only went to three cards. The case is thus different from two decisions of this court relied upon by respondent: NLRB v. Dadourian Export Corp., 138 F.2d 891 (2d Cir. 1943), in which the Board improperly held that the threats were irrelevant even though invalidating the cards of the threate......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT