332 F.2d 47 (2nd Cir. 1964), 408, Bourne v. N. L. R. B.

Docket Nº:408, 28583.
Citation:332 F.2d 47
Party Name:Bonnie BOURNE, an individual, d/b/a Bourne Co., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Case Date:May 15, 1964
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Page 47

332 F.2d 47 (2nd Cir. 1964)

Bonnie BOURNE, an individual, d/b/a Bourne Co., Petitioner,



No. 408, 28583.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 15, 1964

Argued May 11, 1964.

Walter Beck, of Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, New York City (Charles J. Moos, of Fink, Weinberger & Levin, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner.

Page 48

Melvin Pollack, Atty., National Labor Relations Bd., Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Duane R. Batista, Washington, D.C., Atty., on the brief), for respondent.

Before KAUFMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.


This is a petition to set aside an order of the Board, 144 N.L.R.B. No. 75, in which the Board found that petitioner violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (1958). Petitioner was ordered to cease and desist from:

'creating an impression among employees that their union activities are under surveillance; instructing employees to dissuade other employees from joining or engaging in activities in behalf of a labor organization; giving employees money or other benefits to influence them in regard to their union activities; (and) interrogating employees concerning their union activities * * *'

The Board requests that its order be enforced.

We hold that with respect to surveillance, instructing employees to dissuade union activity, and payment of money, the Board's order is authorized by law and supported by substantial evidence, Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951), but that the facts established before the Board are insufficient to sustain the broad ban on interrogation. We accordingly set aside the order with respect to interrogation and grant enforcement of the other portions of the order.

Under our decisions interrogation, not itself threatening, is not held to be an unfair labor practice unless it meets certain fairly severe standards. N.L.R.B. v. Firedoor Corp., 291 F.2d 328 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 921, 82 S.Ct. 242, 7 L.Ed.2d 136 (1961); N.L.R.B. v. Syracuse Color Press, Inc., 209 F.2d 596 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 347 U.S. 966, 74 S.Ct. 777, 98 L.Ed. 1108 (1954); N.L.R.B. v. Montgomery Ward &...

To continue reading