Imperial Laundry v. Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations

• Decision Date: 14 June 1955
• Citation: 142 Conn. 457,115 A.2d 439
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: IMPERIAL LAUNDRY, Inc. v. CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 439

115 A.2d 439

142 Conn. 457

IMPERIAL LAUNDRY, Inc. v. CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 14, 1955.

Raymond J. Quinn, Jr., Waterbury, with whom was Joseph J. Phelan, Waterbury, for appellant (plaintiff).

Daniel E. Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was John J. Bracken, Atty. Gen., for appellee (named defendant).

Louis Feinmark, New Haven, for appellee (defendant union).

Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE, and DALY, JJ.

O'SULLIVAN, Associate Justice.

On June 10, 1952, the defendant Cleaners, Dyers and Laundry Workers Union, Local 364, herein called the union, filed with the named defendant, to be called the board, a written charge that the plaintiff, herein called the company, was engaged in activities classified as unfair labor practices under General Statutes, § 7392. Subsequently, the board issued its complaint and, with an accompanying notice of the time and place for a hearing, served it on the company. After holding numerous hearings, at which voluminous evidence was submitted by the parties, the board reached the conclusions, among others, that the company had interfered with its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by § 7392, that it had discharged five employees because of their union activities, and that it had refused to negotiate in good faith with the union. The board thereupon issued an order that the company (1) cease and desist from interfering with its employees in their pursuit of the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice, (2) proceed, upon request, to bargain collectively with the union, and (3) offer to reinstate three of the discharged employees whom it had refused to rehire, with compensation for the loss of pay suffered by them. Claiming to be aggrieved by the order, the company appealed to the Superior Court. The court affirmed the action of the board, except in one particular concerning which the parties raise no question, and from the judgment rendered the company has appealed to this court. The appeal presents two assignments of error, first, the failure of the court to set aside the findings of fact and conclusions of the board, and second, the ruling of the court that the individuals whom the company was ordered to offer to reinstate were employees when the order was issued. We shall examine these in sequence.

Chapter 370 of the General Statutes is entitled 'Labor Relations Act'. Originally enacted in 1945, ¹ it was predicated upon and its phraseology patterned after, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-167 [29 U.S.C.A. §§ 151-167]. For this reason, the judicial interpretation frequently accorded the federal act is of great assistance and persuasive force in the interpretation of our own act. See Arnold College for Hygiene & Physical Education v. Danaher, 131 Conn. 503, 507, 41 A.2d 89.

The labor relations board, created by General Statutes, § 7389, is required to hold hearings on all complaints charging an employer with any of the enumerated unfair labor practices. §§ 7394(4), 7392. The employer is given the right to file an answer and to appear in person or otherwise to defend against the complaint. Ibid. 'If, upon all the testimony, the board determines that the employer has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labor practice, it shall state its finding of fact and shall issue and cause to be served on such employer an order requiring him to cease and desist from such unfair labor practice, and shall take such further affirmative action as will effectuate the policies' of the chapter. § 7394(5). The legislature has provided that any person aggrieved by a final order of the board may obtain a review thereof in the Superior Court by filing a petition praying that the order be modified or set aside. § 7395(4). One phase of the procedure for review is dissimilar to that followed in appeals from awards of workmen's compensation and unemployment commissioners. In those appeals, a motion to correct the finding is not only permitted but on most occasions foreshadows the decisive assignment of error that there was no evidence to support specific subordinate facts found. In cases originating before the labor relations board, a motion to correct is not available. The review is had upon the entire record, which the board must certify and file in court. § 7395(4). This record includes what § 7394(5) calls a 'finding of fact.' Such a finding need not incorporate the set of subordinate facts customarily included in a finding. It complies with the statute if it states the ultimate finding upon each charge of unfair labor practice. The Superior Court, to which the aggrieved person comes, does not try the matter de novo. Its function is not to adjudicate the facts. Lanyon v. Administrator, 139 Conn. 20, 28, 89 A.2d 558; see DeMond v. Liquor Control Commission, 129 Conn. 642, 645, 30 A.2d 547. It can do nothing more, on the factual questions, than to examine the record to determine whether the ultimate findings of the board were supported, as the statute requires, by substantial evidence. § 7395(2). If it is determined that they were, the findings cannot be disturbed. Ibid.; see Carper v. Administrator, 139 Conn. 515, 520, 95 A.2d 378; Almada v. Administrator, 137 Conn. 380, 391, 77 A.2d 765.

Substantial evidence is evidence that carries conviction. Di Nardo v. Monaghan, 282 App.Div. 5, 7, 121 N.Y.S.2d 119. It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126. It means something more than a mere scintilla and must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established. Purity Food Co. v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, 17 Conn.Supp. 199, 204; National Labor Relations Board v. Columbia Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292, 300, 59 S.Ct. 501, 83 L.Ed. 660; McCague v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co., 225 Ind. 83, 89, 71 N.E.2d 569, 73 N.E.2d 48; Pennsylvania State Board v. Schireson, 360 Pa. 129, 133, 61 A.2d 343. To be sure, the statute provides that the board shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence prevailing in the courts. § 7394(4). This provision was undoubtedly adopted by the General Assembly to give this administrative agency more freedom to investigate than a court enjoys. But this freedom does not permit the board to base its orders on evidence having no rational probative force. Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, supra, 230; Sinclair v. Director of Division of Employment Sec., 331 Mass. 101, 117 N.E.2d 164, 165.

The question, then, that the court had to answer was whether there was substantial evidence before the board to warrant its ultimate findings. From the evidence submitted by the parties, the board could reasonably have found the following facts: The company is engaged in the laundry and dry-cleaning business in Waterbury. During the time of these narrated events, Milton A. Gardner, vice president, and Gerald T. Reuter, sales manager, were in active charge of the business. On June 3, 1952, the company had in its employ forty-five persons, some classified as inside, and others as outside, employees. The latter consisted of five delivery drivers, John J. Bergin, Sr., John F. Reilly, Maurice St. Pierre, Henry J. Collett and Lomer R. Belval. During the preceding January, a movement to organize the employees was begun. The plan was to organize the inside workers into one bargaining unit and the five drivers into another. From the very beginning, the movement was bitterly opposed by Gardner and Reuter. On first hearing about it, they arranged for and held meetings with the inside workers. On those occasions, Gardner and Reuter tried to discourage membership in the proposed local and referred to the union's organizers in a disparaging and offensive manner. To counteract the movement, the company granted the inside employees certain economic benefits such as additional paid holidays and a free hospitalization and medical program. Furthermore, the company promised that it would apply to the office of price stabilization for a change in rates, which, if granted, would permit a wage increase. The antiunion hostility of the company was so strong that on January 31, 1952, Reuter discharged one inside worker and on the following day Gardner discharged another because of their union activities. By methods such as those described above, the company succeeded in thwarting the unionization of the inside workers.

The company was equally antagonistic toward the plan of the drivers to organize, but its efforts proved unsuccessful. On January 17, 1952, the drivers joined the union and on January 29 unanimously designated it as their exclusive bargaining representative. The company, however, continued its attempt to interfere. Early in February, it offered $1000 to one of the drivers as an inducement to have him exert his influence over the other four and urge them to withdraw from the union. On February 5, the board certified the union as the exclusive representative of the drivers for collective bargaining purposes. Negotiations began shortly thereafter and continued intermittently until April 2. During February, the drivers complained about the dilatory tactics of the company in negotiating a contract and threatened to strike. After an agent from the state board of mediation and arbitration interceded at the company's request, negotiations were resumed and culminated in an oral agreement concerning the terms and conditions of the proposed contract. The parties agreed that their understanding should be...