298 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1962), 5870, N. L. R. B. v. Whitelight Products Division of White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp.

Docket Nº:5870, 5877.
Citation:298 F.2d 12
Party Name:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. WHITELIGHT PRODUCTS DIVISION OF WHITE METAL ROLLING AND STAMPING CORPORATION, Respondent. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Case Date:January 15, 1962
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 12

298 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1962)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,

v.

WHITELIGHT PRODUCTS DIVISION OF WHITE METAL ROLLING AND STAMPING CORPORATION, Respondent.

UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner,

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

Nos. 5870, 5877.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

January 15, 1962

Page 13

Melvin J. Welles, Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for National Labor Relations Board.

Robert Abelow, New York City, with whom Marshall C. Berger, William J. Abelow and Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City, were on brief, for respondent in No. 5870.

Allan R. Rosenberg, Boston, Mass., for petitioner in No. 5877.

Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.

ALDRICH, Circuit Judge.

These two matters were heard together The first is a petition for enforcement of a Labor Board order against Whitelight Products Division of White Metal Rolling and Stamping Corp., a New York corporation, hereinafter employer, following a charge by the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, hereinafter the union. The second is a petition by the union to review the dismissal of a portion of the complaint. All of the immediately significant events took place in North Walpole, New Hampshire, between Monday and Friday, August 15 to 19, 1960.

For many years employer had operated a mill in Brooklyn, New York. In 1959 it opened a plant in North Walpole to assemble various types of ladders from magnesium extrusions it produced in Brooklyn. Active operation commenced in March 1960. At this time the workers were inexperienced. By August 15 there were some twenty-four employees in the production and maintenance departments, having varying seniority. The morning of that day the largest of the three Brooklyn extrusion presses suffered a serious breakdown, forecasting a production shortage of several months. North Walpole was informed by telephone and advised to make plans for a reduction in personnel. Word of the breakdown spread through the plant. That afternoon one Belden, a production employee, telephoned the union, and on Tuesday and Wednesday morning eighteen of the employees signed authorization cards. Wednesday noon the union organizer and a committee of the employees, with Belden as chairman, called upon the plant manager and demanded recognition. The Board found that the organizer offered to show the cards, but that the manager's reply was that he would give an answer on Friday. He agreed to take no steps to interfere with the union in the meantime. That afternoon the manager summoned Belden to his office and made some legitimate inquiry about the union, and some that was illegitimate. He was informed that there would be a meeting of the committee at the home of one Smith that evening. That evening he twice drove by Smith's house. His testimony as to his reasons for doing so was not specifically contradicted or impeached.

On Thursday morning the manager engaged in what the trial examiner found to be highly improper vocal antiunion to be highly improper vocal antiunion activity. Thursday afternoon he discharged Belden and Smith, and laid off four other employees. Five of these six were members of the committee. That same day the union filed a petition for certification. On Friday the manager stated that since the union had requested an election, this was its 'answer,' and that he would not recognize the union without the election. The union then filed the present charges, dismissing the certification proceedings.

Page 14

After a three-day hearing the trial examiner found that the employer had discouraged membership in the union in violation of section 8(a)(3), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(3), had refused to bargain in accordance with 8(a)(5), and had engaged in unfair labor...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP