NLRB v. GISSEL PACKING COMPANY

Decision Date28 June 1968
Docket NumberNo. 11228.,11228.
Citation398 F.2d 336
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GISSEL PACKING COMPANY, Inc., Respondent. Food Store Employees Union, Local #347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Intervenor.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Paul J. Spielberg, Atty., N. L. R. B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Francis Flannery, Atty., N. L. R. B., on brief), for petitioner.

C. Robert Schaub, Huntington W. Va. (Jenkins, Schaub & Fenstermaker, Huntington, W. Va., on brief), for respondent.

Albert Gore, Chicago, Ill. (Judith A. Lonnquist, and Jacobs & Gore, Chicago, Ill., on brief), for intervenor.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges.

Certiorari Granted December 16, 1968. See 89 S.Ct. 482.

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order1 directing respondent, Gissel Packing Company, Inc. to take certain steps to remedy violations of the National Labor Relations Act2 found by the Board to have occurred. We decline enforcement of that portion of the order directing respondent to bargain with the union upon request.

Respondent is a West Virginia corporation engaged in the slaughtering, processing, and wholesaling of beef and pork products. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, the union, attempted to organize certain of respondent's employees in 1960 and 1961. The Board directed that an election be held, but the union was defeated. About the middle of January, 1965, the union began a second campaign to organize respondent's employees, and it is out of this campaign that this controversy arises.

The Board concluded that during the 1965 campaign respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act and Section 8(a) (3) by discharging two employees because of their union membership and activity. Substantial evidence on the whole record, though not uncontradicted, exists to support these findings, and we enforce that portion of the Board's order requiring respondent to remedy these violations.

We are unable, however, to accept the Board's determination that respondent violated Sections 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the union upon request, for the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that respondent did not have a good faith doubt as to the union's majority status when confronted with the demand for recognition. On January 22, 1965, union representative Spencer informed respondent that the union represented a majority of the employees in a certain unit and requested recognition basing his claim upon possession by the union of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Gissel Packing Co Food Store Employees Union, Local No 347, Amalgamated NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1969
    ...the appropriate notices. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in per curiam opinions in each of the three cases (398 F.2d 336, 337, 339), sustained the Board's findings as to the §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) violations, but rejected the Board's findings that the employers' refusal ......
  • United Dairy Farmers Co-op. Ass'n v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • October 30, 1980
    ...of surveillance have not been challenged by United Dairy and therefore are summarily affirmed.10 See NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 398 F.2d 336, 337 (4th Cir. 1968) (per curiam) (31 of 47); NLRB v. Heck's, Inc., 398 F.2d 337, 338 (4th Cir. 1968) (per curiam) (21 of 38); General Steel Products......
  • Wheeler-Van Label Company v. NLRB
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 19, 1969
    ...7 We are aware that the use of cards to support a duty to bargain will be presented to the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 398 F.2d 336 (4th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. granted, 393 U.S. 997, 89 S.Ct. 482, 21 L.Ed.2d 462 (1968), and NLRB v. Sinclair Co., 397 F.2d 157 (1st Cir.), ......
  • In re Cemex Constr. Materials Pac.
    • United States
    • National Labor Relations Board
    • December 16, 2021
    ...a review of four different cases from two different Circuit Courts. Three cases arose from the Fourth Circuit, NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 398 F.2d 336 (4th Cir. 1968); NLRB v. Heck's, Inc., 398 F.2d 337 (4th Cir. 1968); and General Steel Products v. NLRB, 398 F.2d 339 (4th Cir. 1968), alon......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT