American Enka Corp. v. National Labor Relations Bd., No. 4733.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPARKER, SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit
PartiesAMERICAN ENKA CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
Docket NumberNo. 4733.
Decision Date07 April 1941

119 F.2d 60 (1941)

AMERICAN ENKA CORPORATION
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

No. 4733.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

April 7, 1941.


T. R. Iserman, of New York City (Larkin, Rathbone & Perry and Nicholas Kelley, all of New York City, and W. A. Egerton, of Enka, N.C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Edward F. Prichard, Jr., Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Lewis M. Gill, and William Strong, all of Washington, D. C., Attys., National Labor Relations Board, on the brief), for respondent.

Before PARKER, SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

PARKER, Circuit Judge.

This is a petition to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board directing the petitioner, American Enka Corporation, to cease and desist from dominating or interfering with the administration of the Factory Workers' Committees (associations of petitioner's employees), contributing financial or other support to them, or, in any other manner, interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed

119 F.2d 61
by section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 157, and, affirmatively, to withdraw all recognition from the committees as bargaining agencies and to post appropriate notices that it will comply with the order. The Board has answered asking enforcement of the order. It is not denied that petitioner is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the practices complained of, if they exist, are within the Board's jurisdiction

The first question presented by the petition is whether the Board's finding as to domination of, interference with and support of the Factory Workers' Committees is sustained by substantial evidence. As to this, we think there can be no doubt. The evidence with regard thereto is fairly summarized by the Board as follows:

"The evidence establishes that the respondent initiated and formulated the Committees. Such activities occurred prior to July 5, 1935, the effective date of the Act, and therefore cannot constitute unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act. They are, however, essential to an appraisal of those activities of the respondent subsequent to July 5, 1935, which are in issue in this proceeding, and will now be considered. * * *

"Following the passage of the Act in 1935, the Committees continued in operation substantially as originated by the respondent and without appreciable change in their relationship to the respondent. The management continued to aid the Committees as prior to passage of the Act. All elections were held in the plant during working hours, the employees voting a few at a time so as not to interfere with the plant operations. They consisted, as before, of primary elections in which the voting employee wrote the name of two nominees on a blank ballot form, and final elections in which the employees used ballots containing the names of the four leading candidates. All employees were eligible to vote; there was no provision for membership. Voting booths, ballot boxes, printed forms for the ballots, voting lists, and posters were furnished by the respondent. Posted on the company bulletin boards were announcements of elections to be held and of the results of the elections, the latter including directions to the representatives how to perform their functions. These notices appeared over the name of Gill (the company's plant manager).

"As was true prior to the passage of the Act, each of the two committees met once a month with Gill and Vanderhooven (the company's secretary) and once with Moritz (the company's vice president), Gill, and Vanderhooven. In advance of meetings, representatives were given an opportunity to consult with the employees in their respective departments as to grievances or requests. They then presented these suggestions and complaints or others of their own to the management. The latter discussed the suggestions with the representatives and thereafter made its decision in each case, usually advancing reasons if it refused to act as desired. These conferences with the management occurred during working hours, as did also the consultations between employees and representatives, and employees who attended when they were off duty were paid for four hours' time at their regular rate. The meetings lasted from 3 to 4 hours; Gill assumed responsibility for checking the attendance and for dismissing the meetings. Meetings of the committee representatives without the presence of the management also took place during working hours, usually in the men's or women's cafeteria, and required the respondent's consent.

"In the spring of 1937 the representatives appointed a Special Workers Survey Committee to appraise the rules and regulations governing the committees and to offer suggestions regarding organization. The recommendations of this survey committee included the establishment of an executive council to represent all workers collectively, and the reorganization of the two committees into three with an increase in the number of representatives to provide more equitable representation. These changes were presented to the management for its approval, and after having been approved were submitted to the committees. All the changes were approved by two committees, with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp., Laundry Drivers and Helpers Local No. 88, No. 88
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 26, 1960
    ...form of threats or coercion. More often it is to be found in the guise of friendly cooperation; * * *' American Enka Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 119 F.2d 60, 62. Virtually all of these condemned activities occurred in the present case. The trial court's finding that the Association was not interf......
  • Sperry Gyroscope Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 259.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 3, 1942
    ...426, 61 S.Ct. 693, 85 L.Ed. 930. See N. L. R. B. v. Air Associates, 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 586, 592; American Enka Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 4 Cir., 119 F.2d 60; Oughton v. N. L. R. B., 3 Cir., 118 F.2d 486; N. L. R. B. v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 1 Cir., 118 F.2d 874. For the Board's findings show no......
  • Englund v. Chavez, S.F. 22934--22941
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 29, 1972
    ...p. 80.) Quoting with approval an earlier Fourth Circuit opinion in American Enka Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board (4th Cir. 1941) 119 F.2d 60, 62, the Petri court further observed that "(s)eldom does the domination and interference with employee representation which the Act prohibits......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Air Associates, No. 292.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • October 15, 1941
    ...courts of appeals have upheld blanket orders in cases similar to the one before us. See American Enka Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 4 Cir., 119 F.2d 60; Oughton v. N. L. R. B., 3 Cir., 118 F.2d 486; N. L. R. B. v. Reid & Prince Mfg. Co., 1 Cir., 118 F.2d 874s order. Respondent argues that its busin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp., Laundry Drivers and Helpers Local No. 88, No. 88
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 26, 1960
    ...form of threats or coercion. More often it is to be found in the guise of friendly cooperation; * * *' American Enka Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 119 F.2d 60, 62. Virtually all of these condemned activities occurred in the present case. The trial court's finding that the Association was not interf......
  • Sperry Gyroscope Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 259.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 3, 1942
    ...426, 61 S.Ct. 693, 85 L.Ed. 930. See N. L. R. B. v. Air Associates, 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 586, 592; American Enka Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 4 Cir., 119 F.2d 60; Oughton v. N. L. R. B., 3 Cir., 118 F.2d 486; N. L. R. B. v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 1 Cir., 118 F.2d 874. For the Board's findings show no......
  • Englund v. Chavez, S.F. 22934--22941
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 29, 1972
    ...p. 80.) Quoting with approval an earlier Fourth Circuit opinion in American Enka Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board (4th Cir. 1941) 119 F.2d 60, 62, the Petri court further observed that "(s)eldom does the domination and interference with employee representation which the Act prohibits......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Air Associates, No. 292.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • October 15, 1941
    ...courts of appeals have upheld blanket orders in cases similar to the one before us. See American Enka Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 4 Cir., 119 F.2d 60; Oughton v. N. L. R. B., 3 Cir., 118 F.2d 486; N. L. R. B. v. Reid & Prince Mfg. Co., 1 Cir., 118 F.2d 874s order. Respondent argues that its busin......
  • 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