National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Lewisburg Chairs & Furn. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 February 1956
• Docket Number: No. 11714,11761.,11714
• Citation: 230 F.2d 155
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LEWISBURG CHAIR & FURNITURE COMPANY, Respondent. LEWISBURG CHAIR & FURNITURE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

230 F.2d 155 (1956)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LEWISBURG CHAIR & FURNITURE COMPANY, Respondent.

LEWISBURG CHAIR & FURNITURE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

Nos. 11714, 11761.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued January 17, 1956.

Decided February 21, 1956.

James A. Ryan, Washington, D. C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for National Labor Relations Board.

John F. Dumont, Little Falls, N. J. (Joseph M. McNerney, McNerney, Page & Vanderlin, Williamsport, Pa., on the brief), for Lewisburg Chair & Furniture Co.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.

This is a labor board case. The National Labor Relations Board is petitioning for enforcement of an order made against Lewisburg Chair and Furniture Company. The Company, in turn, petitions the court to set aside the order.

There is no new point of law in this case. The questions involved are fact questions only. That does not relieve us of responsibility for examination of the record and an appraisal of the arguments made both for enforcement and setting aside. In this we are guided by the Supreme Court's decision in Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., Feb. 26, 1951, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456. See also, N. L. R. B. v. Universal Camera Corp., 2 Cir., July 13, 1951, 190 F.2d 429.

There is no basis in the long record (the appendix submitted is 652 printed pages) for a claim of bias on the part of the trial examiner. The hearing was extended. Each side was given full opportunity for examination and cross-examination. The examiner was prompt in his rulings and completely impartial. When the lawyers began wrangling he got the hearing back on its track again. The feeling that the trier of the fact, be he baseball umpire, trial judge or hearing officer, is biased is not uncommon for one against whom decision has gone. This case presents nothing more than that on this point.

The entire controversy centers around the discharge of two employees named Moyer and Snyder. These men were discharged by the Company's management upon the alleged ground that they had falsified their production records. It was not disputed that if they had done so, this was a proper ground for their discharge. The point was also made and met by the trial examiner that the discharge would equally have been justified had the manager of the respondent's plant had a reasonable and honest belief that the records had been so falsified whether they were or not.

The case for the board's general counsel was predicated upon the theory that while dishonesty was the alleged reason for the discharge of Moyer and Snyder, the real reason was their prominent and long-continued union activity. These men had been among a group which had sponsored an attempt to unionize the company's plant. There had been three elections, two under the auspices of the Labor Relations Board, in 1953. The vote in each case was against unionization. After this decisive defeat, however, Moyer and Snyder continued to be active for the union. They passed out union newspapers at the gate of the plant; they busied themselves in getting Union help for three employees who had been laid off. There was plenty of evidence of the union activity and there was plenty of evidence also that company...