International Chemical Workers Union v. NLRB

• Decision Date: 01 May 1968
• Docket Number: 21484.,No. 21331,21331
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION and Its Local 773, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Hackney Iron and Steel Company, Intervenors. HACKNEY IRON AND STEEL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, International Chemical Workers Union and Its Local 773, Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

395 F.2d 639 (1968)

INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION and Its Local 773, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Hackney Iron and Steel Company, Intervenors.

HACKNEY IRON AND STEEL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, International Chemical Workers Union and Its Local 773, Intervenors.

Nos. 21331, 21484.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued April 17, 1968.

Decided May 1, 1968.

Petition for Rehearing Denied June 27, 1968.

Mr. Jerry D. Anker, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Stephen E. Moss, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioners in No. 21,331 and intervenors in No. 21,484.

Mr. Larry Lesh, Dallas, Tex., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Texas, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Warren Woods and Mrs. Betty Southard Murphy, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant in No. 21,484 and intervenor in No. 21,331.

Mr. Richard S. Rodin, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost. Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for respondent.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, and McGOWAN, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

These petitions for review of a National Labor Relations Board order grow out of the acquisition and continued operation of a small independently-owned manufacturing plant in Texas by a considerably larger business enterprise. The latter, in No. 21484, challenges a holding by the Board that it must recognize and bargain with the union which, at the time of the acquisition, was the certified bargaining representative of the plant's employees. The principle here involved is whether the acquired business retained its identity and continuity to a degree making it reasonable to require the successor employer to recognize the certified union. See, e. g., Makela Welding, Inc. v. NLRB, 387 F.2d 40, 46 (6th Cir. 1967). We think that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's findings in this regard.¹

In No. 21331 the union complains of two things. One is the Board's adoption of the trial examiner's findings that two employees were not denied overtime work because of their union affiliation and activity. The issue turned largely upon credibility determinations and again we think there was adequate record support for the Board's action. The second error asserted by the union is the failure of the Board to include in its order a requirement that the successor employer observe the collective bargaining agreement in effect at the time of the acquisition.

The Trial Examiner included such a requirement in his recommended order. The Board purported to find it unnecessary to reach the point "since such a determination does not come within the scope of the complaint nor does the record establish whether the agreement is presently in effect."...