Hartsell Mills Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd.

• Decision Date: 10 April 1940
• Docket Number: No. 4592.,4592.
• Citation: 111 F.2d 291
• Parties: HARTSELL MILLS CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

111 F.2d 291 (1940)

HARTSELL MILLS CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

No. 4592.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

April 10, 1940.

Edwin A. Lucas, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Benjamin W. Parham and Parham & Taylor, all of Oxford, N. C., and Drinker, Biddle & Reath, of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for petitioner.

Bertram Edises, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D. C., (Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Roman Beck, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.

Before PARKER, SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

PARKER, Circuit Judge.

This is a petition to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petitioner operates a textile mill at Concord, N. C. The Board found that it refused to bargain collectively with a labor union representing its employees, that it interfered with self organization on the part of the employees, and that it was guilty of anti-union discrimination in the discharge of one Love. A cease and desist order in the usual form was entered, and petitioner was directed to reinstate Love with back pay. In the view which we take of the case, three questions are presented for our consideration: (1) Whether the finding of the Board that the union represented a majority of petitioner's employees is supported by substantial evidence; (2) whether the finding that petitioner refused to bargain with the union is so supported; and (3) whether the finding as to the discriminatory discharge of Love is so supported. We think that all of these questions must be answered in the affirmative.

Petitioner had 200 employees at the time of the refusal to bargain. Union membership cards signed by 137 of these were introduced in evidence. There were discrepancies between the names on some of the cards and those on petitioner's pay roll; but the discrepancies were of minor character and there was sufficient evidence of identity to justify the Board's finding. Petitioner makes much of the fact that on the membership cards the employees were described as employed by Stead & Miller Company, petitioner's principal stockholder; but this, we think, is immaterial. The cards specifically designated the union to act as bargaining representative in all matters relating to wages and conditions of employment; and, in its negotiations with the union, petitioner never at any time raised the point that it was not properly authorized to represent its members in bargaining with petitioner. Futhermore, petitioner did not raise the point that the union did not represent a majority of the employees or refuse to bargain with it on that ground. The contention, belatedly made, that the union had not secured majority representation at the time of the refusal to bargain is too unsubstantial to justify serious discussion. The point that the union may not now represent a majority of petitioner's employees is sufficiently answered by what was said by this Court in the recent case of National Labor Relations Board v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., 4 Cir., 110 F.2d 632.

Unsubstantial, too, is the contention that the finding as to refusal to bargain collectively is not adequately supported. There was evidence that petitioner took the position in dealing with the union that it would recognize the right of the union to represent only employees who were members of that organization, and no others. This was not a compliance with the act, section 9(a) of which provides that an organization representing a majority shall bargain for all of the employees. 29 U.S.C.A. § 159(a). National Licorice Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 60 S.Ct. 569, 574, 84 L.Ed. — National Labor Relations Board v. Biles-Coleman Co., 9 Cir., 98 F.2d 18, 22; National Labor Relations Board v. Boss Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 107 F.2d 574, 577. There was evidence, also, that petitioner took the position that it would not embody in a written contract any agreements which might be reached with the union. This was a pertinent circumstance for consideration on the issue of refusal to bargain as required by the act, even though no agreements were actually reached. National Labor Relations Board v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., supra. Furthermore, there was evidence that petitioner made a withdrawal of charges as to the discriminatory discharge of Love a condition precedent to further negotiations; and it is clear that petitioner could not thus make its compliance with the act dependent upon dismissal of charges that it had been guilty of violating it.

We have recently held in National Labor Relations Board v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., supra, that a refusal to bargain collectively with representatives of employees amounts to an interference with their right of self organization for the purpose of collective bargaining. See also Art Metals Const. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 110 F.2d 148; National Labor Relations Board v. Biles-Coleman Co., 9 Cir., 98 F.2d 18, 22, 23. It was proper, therefore, upon a finding of refusal to bargain collectively, for the order to forbid generally any interference with the right of self organization. As that provision of the order was thus supported in the findings, it is unnecessary to consider the finding as to interference, restraint and coercion by supervisory employees.

As to the discharge of Love, there was evidence on behalf of petitioner that Love had been guilty of various acts of misconduct extending over a period of more than a year. He was not discharged for any of these acts, however, but, according to the contention of petitioner, because of criticising the company for the discharge of an aged gatekeeper. The Board found that the real reason was that he had just been elected president of the local chapter of a...