JS Dillon & Sons Stores Co. v. NLRB, No. 7608.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPICKETT, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit
PartiesThe J. S. DILLON & SONS STORES CO., Inc., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Decision Date25 November 1964
Docket NumberNo. 7608.

338 F.2d 395 (1964)

The J. S. DILLON & SONS STORES CO., Inc., Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 7608.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

November 25, 1964.


338 F.2d 396
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
338 F.2d 397
William G. Haynes, of Lillard, Eidson, Lewis & Porter, Topeka, Kan. (O. B. Eidson, Philip H. Lewis, James W. Porter, Charles S. Fisher, Jr., Peter F. Caldwell, Roscoe E. Long, R. Austin Nothern and Brock R. Snyder, Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for petitioner

Anthony J. Obadal, Attorney, N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B. and Elliott Moore, Attorney, N.L.R.B., on the brief), for respondent.

Before PICKETT, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PICKETT, Circuit Judge.

This case is before the court on a petition of the J. S. Dillon & Stores Co., Inc., to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board and on the Board's petition to enforce the order. The Board found that petitioner violated § 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), by interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the free exercise of their rights guaranteed by § 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157. The alleged unfair labor practices are predicated upon three acts, prior to a representation election, of alleged misconduct consisting of: (1) threats of reprisal if employees were unionized; (2) attempts to influence employees in the representation election by changes in working conditions; and (3) threatened deprivation of certain fringe benefits to part-time employees if a union contract were negotiated. The sole question is whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Board's order.

The petitioner operates retail food outlets in Colorado and Kansas, and a food warehouse at Hutchinson, Kansas. This dispute involves only the Hutchinson warehouse. The warehouse is made up of six separate departments; maintenance, trucking, general office, cafeteria, advertising and warehouse. The warehouse department is divided into shipping, receiving, grocery and produce functions. On February 15, 1963 the union1 filed a representation petition seeking to be designated the bargaining agent for all production, maintenance, warehouse and shipping employees, and the over-the-road truck drivers at the warehouse.

The alleged threats of reprisal made to the truck driver Bridgewater by Caywood, the supervisor of trucking, occurred during the course of a conversation between the two men in the latter part of February.2 Bridgewater testified that he was aware of the union's organizational drive at the time Caywood talked to him. He testified that Caywood indicated he had heard of union talk, and stated that "* * * `We can't have that here. Ray Dillon has to keep his boys happy and he can't do it with agitators around.'" Bridgewater also said that "He told me that we didn't need a union. He said Dillon could handle things there themselves, they were doing a pretty good job. If we did go union, they could put these tattletales, or whatever it is on the trucks and we would cut out coffee breaks and it would be rough on us. * * * He (Caywood) said he had been in the union. He said he worked for the railroad and in the railroad they needed it, at Dillon's they just didn't need it." Bridgewater said Caywood told him "`You know how I (Caywood) stand on this union. * * * I told you before how I stand.'" Bridgewater said that he "took that for granted," that Caywood was referring to a conversation they had "two or three years ago" at which time Caywood told him "that was the first

338 F.2d 398
thing he would fire a man for is talking union." There is no evidence that Caywood was referring to this particular statement. On cross-examination Bridgewater testified as follows
"Q. (By Mr. Haynes) The conversation, as I understand it now, was to the effect that if the employees, if the truck drivers became organized, the operation would be run on a tighter schedule? A. Yes.
"Q. Is that true? A. Yes.
"Q. Is that all the comment, was there any comment about whether or not this would come about if there were economic demands made upon the company by the union which would require them to tighten up to compensate for these demands? Was there anything like that discussed? A. No, but I figured that in."

The Dillon-Hobbick conversation which the Board also found constituted threats of reprisals, took place about the first of March, 1963.3 This meeting came about as a result of Hobbick's request at a welfare committee meeting to discuss some matters concerning only the girls in the repack department.4 She said that some of the girls had raised questions about vacation periods and about the possibility of a more regular work basis. These five employees were classed as regular part-time help because their employment depended upon the demand for produce. Hobbick testified that in response to an inquiry about their fringe benefits of insurance, vacation, and sick pay, they were told that to the best of Dillon's knowledge, no union could cover part-time help, and that with a union contract they could lose these benefits. Dillon testified that these five were the only part-time employees who presently received such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Dow Chemical Co., Texas Div. v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 80-1764
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 5, 1981
    ...(8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 407 U.S. 539, 92 S.Ct. 2238, 33 L.Ed.2d 122 (1972); J. S. Dillon & Sons Stores Co. v. N.L.R.B., 338 F.2d 395, 400 (10th Cir. 1964); N.L.R.B. v. Laars Engineers, Inc., 332 F.2d 664, 667 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 930, 85 S.Ct. 325, 13 L.Ed.2......
  • Conn. Attorney Gen v. Taylor (In re Taylor), Case No.: 15-31208 (AMN)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Connecticut
    • September 10, 2019
    ...them in achieving a just result. It is not a categorical imperative,Page 7 to be blindly followed to a result that is unjust." Wallace, 338 F.2d at 395 n.1; see also In re Hat, 363 B.R. 123, 141 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2007)(finding the equities including the trustee's lack of funds to perform ba......
  • NLRB v. Golub Corporation, No. 62
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • December 1, 1967
    ...Lumber, 355 F. 2d 426 (8 Cir. 1966); NLRB v. Morris Novelty Co., 378 F.2d 1000, 1003 (8 Cir. 1967); J. S. Dillon & Sons Stores v. NLRB, 338 F.2d 395 (10 Cir. 1964); Amalgamated Clothing Workers, etc. v. NLRB, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 365 F.2d 898, 908 (1966); Truck Drivers & Helpers Local No. ......
  • NLRB v. Acker Industries, Inc., No. 71-1176.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • May 16, 1972
    ...to a proscribed course of conduct, it cannot justify a finding of a section 8(a)(1) violation. Cf. J.S. Dillon & Sons Stores Co. v. NLRB, 338 F.2d 395 (10th The respondent argues that the Board's finding that Streater was discharged because of his union activity is not supported by the reco......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Dow Chemical Co., Texas Div. v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 80-1764
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 5, 1981
    ...(8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 407 U.S. 539, 92 S.Ct. 2238, 33 L.Ed.2d 122 (1972); J. S. Dillon & Sons Stores Co. v. N.L.R.B., 338 F.2d 395, 400 (10th Cir. 1964); N.L.R.B. v. Laars Engineers, Inc., 332 F.2d 664, 667 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 930, 85 S.Ct. 325, 13 L.Ed.2......
  • Conn. Attorney Gen v. Taylor (In re Taylor), Case No.: 15-31208 (AMN)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Connecticut
    • September 10, 2019
    ...them in achieving a just result. It is not a categorical imperative,Page 7 to be blindly followed to a result that is unjust." Wallace, 338 F.2d at 395 n.1; see also In re Hat, 363 B.R. 123, 141 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2007)(finding the equities including the trustee's lack of funds to perform ba......
  • NLRB v. Golub Corporation, No. 62
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • December 1, 1967
    ...Lumber, 355 F. 2d 426 (8 Cir. 1966); NLRB v. Morris Novelty Co., 378 F.2d 1000, 1003 (8 Cir. 1967); J. S. Dillon & Sons Stores v. NLRB, 338 F.2d 395 (10 Cir. 1964); Amalgamated Clothing Workers, etc. v. NLRB, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 365 F.2d 898, 908 (1966); Truck Drivers & Helpers Local No. ......
  • NLRB v. Acker Industries, Inc., No. 71-1176.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • May 16, 1972
    ...to a proscribed course of conduct, it cannot justify a finding of a section 8(a)(1) violation. Cf. J.S. Dillon & Sons Stores Co. v. NLRB, 338 F.2d 395 (10th The respondent argues that the Board's finding that Streater was discharged because of his union activity is not supported by the reco......
  • 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