398 F.2d 336 (4th Cir. 1968), 11228, N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co.

• Docket Nº: 11228.
• Citation: 398 F.2d 336
• Party Name: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GISSEL PACKING COMPANY, Inc., Respondent. Food Store Employees Union, Local #347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and ButcherWorkmen of North America, AFLCIO, Intervenor.
• Case Date: June 28, 1968
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 336

398 F.2d 336 (4th Cir. 1968)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,

v.

GISSEL PACKING COMPANY, Inc., Respondent.

Food Store Employees Union, Local #347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and ButcherWorkmen of North America, AFLCIO, Intervenor.

No. 11228.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

June 28, 1968

Argued Jan. 11, 1968.

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.

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order ¹ directing respondent, Gissel Packing Company, Inc. to take certain steps to remedy violations of the National Labor Relations Act ² 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

Page 337

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...