National Labor Relations Board v. C. & J. CAMP, INC.
| Citation | 216 F.2d 113 |
| Decision Date | 29 October 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 15064.,15064. |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. C. & J. CAMP, Inc., Clarence Camp II, Margaret Hocker Camp Lane, as the executrix of the Estate of Henry N. Camp, D. B. Kibler, Jr., D. B. Kibler III, in a joint enterprise d/b/a Kibler-Camp Phosphate Enterprise, Respondents. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel N.L. R.B., A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel N.L.R.B., Ruth V. Reel, Arnold Ordman, Attorneys N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
E. Snow Martin, Lakeland, Fla., William F. Howe, Jerome Powell, Washington, D. C., Bryant & Martin, Lakeland, Fla., Gall Lane & Howe, Washington, D. C., Gall, Lane and Howe, Washington, D. C., for respondents.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RIVES and TUTTLE, Circuit Judges.
Having found that respondents1 violated: Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., by interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Sec. 7; Sec. 8(a) (3) and (1) by discharging employee Norman Savary because of his leadership in organizing the International Union of Operating Engineers; and Sec. 8 (a) (5) and (1) by refusing to bargain with the certified representative of their employees; and having entered its decision and order2 in accordance with its findings; the Board by petition to this court sought enforcement of its order.
The respondents by their answer joined issue with the Board and, denying the correctness of its findings and the validity of its order, put both to the test.
Thereafter both board and respondents by briefs and oral argument urged upon the court their respective contentions and views as to the findings and record, and the matters in controversy are before us for decision. The board insists that each and every finding on which it relies finds full support in the record considered as a whole. The respondents on their part urge upon us that all the findings, and especially all those having to do with the discharge of the employee Savary, are based not upon substantial and credible evidence but upon suspicion and conjecture and upon testimony which is without probative force because incredible on its face or wholly discredited.
As to the charges and findings that they violated the act by prohibited surveillance and interrogation of their employees in an attempt to prevent their successful unionization, respondents urge upon us that there is no evidence of threats, coercion or promises of reward and nothing that was done by them which went beyond their right of free speech under the Constitution and the Act.
As to the charges that they refused to bargain with the union, respondents do not deny that they granted a unilateral wage increase without first consulting the union or that they did insist, as a condition to meeting with the union for bargaining, that the union agree in advance of the meeting that the demand it had already made would be to some extent abated or lessened. As to the unilateral wage increase, they put forward neither explanation nor excuse, while as to the conditions laid down for bargaining, they confess and avoid by urging that their demand upon the union was only a technical violation of their duty to bargain and meant no more than to state that the union's first demands must be modified if an agreement was to be reached.
Indeed, so concerned are they with their defense to the charge that Savary was discriminatorily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. Florida Steel Corp.
...National Paper Co. (5 Cir., 216 F.2d 859), supra; N. L. R. B. v. Blue Bell, Inc. (5 Cir., 219 F.2d 796), supra; N. L. R. B. v. C. & J. Camp, Inc., 5 Cir., 216 F.2d 113, supra." (233 F.2d 412) (Emphasis This holding was quoted with approval by this court in Schwob Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 297 F.2d ......
-
Trailmobile Division, Pullman Incorporated v. NLRB
...406 (5 Cir. 1956); National Labor Relations Board v. Russell Mfg. Co., 191 F.2d 358(4) (5 Cir. 1951); National Labor Relations Board v. C. & J. Camp, Inc., 216 F.2d 113, 115 (5 Cir. 1954). As this court said recently "the evidence of legitimate motive by the employer is sufficiently compell......
-
Florida Steel Corp. v. N.L.R.B.
...National Paper Co. (5 Cir., 216 F.2d 859), supra; N. L. R. B. v. Blue Bell, Inc. (5 Cir., 219 F.2d 796), supra; N. L. R. B. v. C. & J. Camp, Inc. (5 Cir., 216 F.2d 113), supra." (233 F.2d at 412-13). (Emphasis This holding was quoted with approval by us in Schwob Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 29......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. McGahey
...Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 130 F.2d 260; N. L. R. B. v. Huber & Huber Motor Express, Inc., 5 Cir., 223 F.2d 748; N. L. R. B. v. C. & J. Camp, Inc., 5 Cir., 216 F.2d 113; N. L. R. B. v. National Paper Co., 5 Cir., 216 F.2d 859; N. L. R. B. v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Co., 5 Cir., 211 F.2d 848; N.......