296 F.2d 91 (3rd Cir. 1961), 13596, N. L. R. B. v. Barney's Supercenter, Inc.

Docket Nº:13596.
Citation:296 F.2d 91
Party Name:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. BARNEY'S SUPERCENTER, INC., Respondent.
Case Date:November 16, 1961
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 91

296 F.2d 91 (3rd Cir. 1961)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,

v.

BARNEY'S SUPERCENTER, INC., Respondent.

No. 13596.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

November 16, 1961

Argued Oct. 5, 1961.

Page 92

Marion L. Griffin, Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Jack J. Rosenberg, Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent.

Before GOODRICH, STALEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

STALEY, Circuit Judge.

The National Labor Relations Board ('Board') seeks enforcement of an order issued against Barney's Supercenter, Inc. ('Barney') after finding that Barney violated various provisions of the National Labor Relations Act ('Act'), 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., to-wit, section 8(a)(5) and (1), by refusing to bargain with a majority union, section 8(a)(1) by unlawfully inhibiting union activity through interrogation of employees, threats and promises, and lastly, section 8(a)(3) and(1) by failing to reinstate or place striking employees, who applied for reinstatement, on a preferential hiring list. 1 The order directed Barney to cease and desist from these unfair labor practices and affirmatively required it to recognize and bargain with Retail Clerks International Association, Retail Store Employees Local Union 1407, AFL-CIO ('union').

After only ten of Barney's twenty-six employees signed union authorization cards, representatives of the union visited Barney's on May 26, 1958, and spoke to the president, demanding recognition and negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement. The president replied that before any action could be taken the matter would first be discussed with his associates. By June 6, 1958, the union had secured five additional signatures, giving it a total of fifteen, which constituted a bare majority of one inasmuch as Barney had increased its work force to twenty-nine. On that day, a discussion took place between Ammond, the union's secretary-treasurer, and various officials of Barney. Recognition was not granted. Thereafter, seventeen employees met on June 15, 1958, and voted to strike. A picket line was formed later that day in front of Barney's place of business in Pittsburgh. The strike was unsuccessful and the pickets were withdrawn in February of 1959. Within a month after the strike began, Barney hired four new salesmen as replacements for the strikers and reinstated two strikers, while five other strikers unconditionally requested but were denied reinstatement.

Barney vigorously attacks the Board's order. 2 At the threshold, it contends

Page 93

that the union did not represent an uncoerced majority because employee Hannon was falsely told by the union that a majority of Barney's employees had already signed authorization cards, and that he signed, thereby giving the union majority status, only...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP