333 F.2d 289 (4th Cir. 1964), 9302, Florence Printing Co. v. N. L. R. B.
|Citation:||333 F.2d 289|
|Party Name:||FLORENCE PRINTING CO., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.|
|Case Date:||June 10, 1964|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
Argued April 15, 1964.
William H. Smith, Jr., Columbia, S.C. (E. D. Smith, Jr.; McKay, McKay, Black & Walker, Columbia, S.C., and Wright, Scott, Blackwell & Powers, Florence, S.C., on brief) for petitioner.
Richard P. Lawlor, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Solomon I. Hirsh, Atty., N.L.R.B., on brief), for respondent.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH land J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges.
SOBELOFF, Chief Judge.
Florence Printing Company, a newspaper publisher in Florence, South Carolina, petitions this court to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board finding the company in violation of 8(a)(1) & (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1) & (5), and ordering the reinstatement of certain striking employees with back pay and interest. The Board cross-petitions for enforcement.
On June 25, 1962, two officials of the charleston Typographical Union, No. 43, presented to John M. O'Dowd, the president and publisher of the company, a written demand for recognition. The collective bargaining unit sought by them consisted of composing room employees, teletypesetters and proofreaders. Nineteen of the company's 75 employees are within this unit, and the union officials claimed to have the consent of 14 of these. To this demand O'Dowd replied that 'I will not sign a union contract,' and refused to consent to a secret election conducted by a third party of his choice. When asked if he would recognize the union if a majority status were proved by the employee-members of the union presenting themselves to him, he said he would not. He did ask for a list of the names but this was refused because he told the union officials that on a prior occasion he was successful in beating the union once he knew the identity of the members.
I. INTERFERENCE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(a)(1)
Four days after the initial request for recognition, O'Dowd wrote the union informing it that 'the Company doubts your majority status' and that the union would not be recognized until it was certified in an election conducted by the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP