Birmingham Post Co. v. NAT. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 10705.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 10705.,10705. |
| Citation | 140 F.2d 638 |
| Parties | BIRMINGHAM POST CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Thomas J. Edwards, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Benjamin Leader, of Birmingham, Ala., for petitioner.
Robert B. Watts, General Counsel, N. L.R.B., Ernest A. Gross, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., and Fannie M. Boyls, Atty., N.L.R.B., all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before HUTCHESON, McCORD, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Insisting that the Board's order1 is without support in the evidence, petitioner seeks a decree setting it aside and denying enforcement. The Board, equally insistent that the findings and order are well supported, asks a decree of enforcement. Petitioner's objections to the findings come down to this; that they are based upon activities of one McCluskey, petitioner's city editor, and one Laney, the foreman of the mailing room; that (1) the activities of these men could not be fairly said to have constituted either support of, or interference with, the formation or management of the association sought to be company dominated, and (2) if they did, they could not be imputed to, or charged against petitioner as its acts.
Assuming, as petitioner does, that no other employees of petitioner were concerned in the unfair labor practices found by the Board, it is sufficient, without setting the evidence out, to say of it that it amply supports the Board's conclusions that these two were active in endeavoring to break the strike and the influence of the guild; and in giving support to Alabama News Employees, Inc.; and that their acts in doing so are, under the statute, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., imputable to the petitioner as unfair labor practices. The authorities petitioner cites as relieving it of responsibility under the statute for the acts of these two do not support its claim. The law is well settled that under circumstances like those shown here, an employer is accountable for unfair practices resulting from the activities of his supervisory employees not only when the proof shows direct authorization but whenever the circumstances are such that the employees would have just cause to believe that the supervisors were acting for and on behalf of the management.2 It is firmly established that petitioner's duty under the act is not to give mere lip service to it with proclamations and instructions, but to use its authority to make its policy effective, and that if proscribed practices are carried on by supervisory employees so that the employer gains any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Laister-Kauffmann A. Corp.
...to to determine the policy of the company. Lip service to the policy and purposes of the Act is not sufficient. Birmingham Post Co. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir., 140 F.2d 638, 640. Under the Act Congress evinced its determination that industrial peace will be promoted if the steps of the employee......
-
Elastic Stop Nut Corp. v. National Labor Rel. Board
...L.Ed. 368; National Labor Relations Board v. Falk Corp., 308 U.S. 453, 461, 60 S.Ct. 307, 84 L.Ed. 396; Birmingham Post Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 140 F.2d 638, 640. Inasmuch as a broad exercise of the Board's expert judgment, and its discretion, is necessary to effectua......
-
Estate of Grace v. United States
...... they were linked to each other, not to any post or ante family practice, and that they had a ...Grace. . 32. In his relations with his children, Joseph P. Grace was both ...Grace was chairman of the board of that company. . 43. Alan Ross ......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Bird Mach. Co., 4219.
...309. See also N.L.R.B. v. Brezner Tanning Co., 1 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 62; N.L.R.B. v. Franks Bros. Co., supra; Birmingham Post Co. v. N.L.R.B., 5 Cir., 1944, 140 F.2d 638. Had the employer posted notices to the effect of the instructions given the foremen, or otherwise communicated this inf......