625 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1980), 78-1069, N.L.R.B. v. Publishers Printing Co., Inc.

Docket Nº:78-1069.
Citation:625 F.2d 746
Party Name:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. PUBLISHERS PRINTING COMPANY, INC., Respondent.
Case Date:July 10, 1980
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Page 746

625 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1980)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,

v.

PUBLISHERS PRINTING COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

No. 78-1069.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

July 10, 1980

Argued April 7, 1980.

Page 747

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, John G. Elligers, Frederick Havard, Linda Weisel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Emil Farkas, Director, Region 9, N. L. R. B., Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner.

John H. Doesburg, Phoenix, Ariz., for respondent.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, BROWN, Circuit Judge and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.

CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petitioner, National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq., applies for enforcement of its order to respondent, Publishers Printing Company, Inc., a Kentucky corporation, engaged in publishing magazines for commercial customers, to cease and desist from:

1. discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees to discourage membership in the Teamsters, Local Union 783, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America;

2. interrogating employees as to whether they signed union cards;

3. telling employees that the plant would be closed if the employees voted in a union;

4. telling employees that an employee had been fired for soliciting union cards;

5. enforcing any rule that there would be no solicitations of any kind for any purpose carried on among employees;

6. in any other manner discouraging membership in the union organization.

Further, the Board's order requires the respondent to take affirmative action as follows:

1. offer Carl Mattingly and William Phillips full reinstatement to their former positions;

2. make Mattingly and Phillips whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of respondent's discrimination against them;

3. revoke its no solicitation rule.

The ultimate issues are:

Whether substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board's findings that Respondent violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.

The respondent argues that those persons allegedly responsible for the violative actions were not supervisors and therefore management could not be responsible for their acts. Our first consideration then, is whether the Board's determination that those persons were supervisors "has 'warrant in the record' and a reasonable basis in law." N. L. R. B. v. Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. 111, 131, 64 S.Ct. 851, 861, 88 L.Ed. 1170 (1944). Section 2(11) of the Act defines a supervisor as:

"any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP