Bourne v. NLRB
| Decision Date | 15 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 408,Docket 28583.,408 |
| Citation | 332 F.2d 47 |
| Parties | Bonnie BOURNE, an individual, d/b/a Bourne Co., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
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.
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 & Co., 192 F.2d 160 (2d Cir. 1951).
These include:
(1) The background, i. e. is there a history of employer hostility and discrimination?
(2) The nature of the information sought, e. g. did the interrogator appear to be seeking information on which to base taking action against individual employees?
(3) The identity of the questioner, i. e. how high was he in the company hierarchy?
(4) Place and method of interrogation, e. g. was employee called from work to the boss's office? Was there an atmosphere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local 633 of New Hampshire v. N.L.R.B.
...into impermissible use of employer economic power. A number of these factors were enunciated in the leading case of Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964) and other factors were suggested in a subsequent case in the Fifth Circuit. 15 Virtually every Circuit Court of Appeals has adop......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Martin A. Gleason, Inc.
...to support the Board's decision that the circumstances surrounding the request constituted coercive interrogation. See Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2 Cir. 1964); NLRB v. Scoler's Incorporated, 466 F.2d 1289 (2 Cir. Neither NLRB v. Interboro Contractors, Inc., 432 F.2d 854, 857 (2 Cir. 1......
-
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS v. City of Vancouver
...(8) whether the employer assured the employee that no reprisals would be forthcoming should he or she support the union. Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1964); see also ITT Automotive v. NLRB, 188 F.3d 375, 390 n. 10 (6th Cir. 1999); NLRB v. McCullough Envtl. Serv., Inc., 5 F.3d 923......
-
Federal-Mogul Corp. v. N.L.R.B.
...Judge Wisdom, in speaking for this Court, pointed out that in addition to the factors to be considered on employee interrogation as stated in Bourne, the additional factor of "whether the employer assured the employees that no reprisals would be taken" might be considered. In the instant ca......
-
NLRB Issues Four Decisions in Five Days
...to apply the standard. For example, the Second Circuit has instead applied a totality of the circumstances test. See Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964). While the standard has existed since 1964, below is a refresher on an employer’s best practices. When an employer questions an emp......
-
NLRB Issues Four Decisions In Five Days
...to apply the standard. For example, the Second Circuit has instead applied a totality of the circumstances test. See Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. While the standard has existed since 1964, below is a refresher on an employer's best practices. When an employer questions an employee a......