316 F.2d 595 (7th Cir. 1963), 13985, N. L. R. B. v. Larry Faul Oldsmobile Co.

Docket Nº:13985.
Citation:316 F.2d 595
Party Name:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LARRY FAUL OLDSMOBILE CO., Inc., Respondent.
Case Date:April 30, 1963
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Page 595

316 F.2d 595 (7th Cir. 1963)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,

v.

LARRY FAUL OLDSMOBILE CO., Inc., Respondent.

No. 13985.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

April 30, 1963

Page 596

Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Lee M. Modjeska, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Murray B. Woolley, Frederick W. Turner, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for Larry Faul Oldsmobile Co., Inc.

Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, CASTLE, Circuit Judge, and MERCER, District Judge.

HASTINGS, Chief Judge.

This matter is before us on petition of National Labor Relations Board (Board) for enforcement of its order against respondent, Larry Faul Oldsmobile Co., Inc.

Respondent is engaged in the retail sale of new and used automobiles in Oak Park, Illinois where the events involved in this case occurred.

The Board found that respondent violated § 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(5) and (1), by refusing to recognize and bargain with union. 1 The Board also found that respondent violated § 8(a)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1), by interrogating its employees concerning their union membership and activities, by threatening employees with reprisals for engaging in union activity and by promising more favorable treatment to induce employees to abandon their union activity. The Board's decision and order are reported at 138 N.L.R.B. No. 81.

The Board's order requires respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and from in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their statutory rights. Affirmatively, the Board's order requires respondent to bargain with union upon request, and to post appropriate notices.

Respondent's only contention is that the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.

In the fall of 1961, a campaign was begun to organize respondent's automobile salesmen. Respondent employed six such salesmen and by November 18, 1961, all of them had signed cards authorizing union to represent them for collective bargaining. On November 21, respondent received a letter from union advising respondent of its majority status and requesting a bargaining meeting. In this letter, union offered to submit the cards to a mutually agreeable third party for verification of the signatures. Respondent did not respond to this letter.

On December 9, 1961, respondent received another letter from union, transmitting the six union authorization cards and requesting a bargaining meeting. Respondent's president, Lawrence P. Faul, was satisfied on this date of the authenticity of the signatures on all of

Page 597

the cards. On December 12, respondent wrote union: 'I do not believe that you represent a majority of my salesmen. Accordingly, I see no reason for a meeting.' There was no meeting between respondent and union.

We agree with the Board that respondent refused to bargain with union on December 12 in violation of § 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. We find unconvincing the arguments advanced by respondent that its president harbored a good faith doubt of the majority status of union on December 12. A proper and satisfactory analysis of the refusal to bargain issue appears in the trial examiner's report which was adopted by the Board. We deem it unnecessary to repeat such analysis here.

Several days after respondent's president refused union's request for a bargaining meeting, he called Charles Burian, one of the salesmen, into his office. Burian was asked why the men had joined the union. In the course of the conversation which ensued, Faul proposed that Burian talk to the other salesmen and submit a written list of their...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP