Johnston v. JP Stevens & Company
| Decision Date | 19 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 9672.,9672. |
| Citation | 341 F.2d 891 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
| Parties | Reed JOHNSTON, Regional Director of the Eleventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board, Appellant, v. J. P. STEVENS & COMPANY, Inc., Appellee. |
Glen M. Bendixsen, Attorney, N. L. R. B. , for appellant.
W. S. Blakeney, Charlotte, N. C. (Blakeney, Alexander & Machen, Charlotte, N. C., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.
The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board here appeals from the refusal on June 30, 1964, by the District Court of the Western District of South Carolina to issue a temporary injunction pursuant to section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against the continuance of unfair labor practices allegedly being committed by J. P. Stevens & Company, Inc.
A complaint charging unfair labor practices was issued by the Board against this company on January 3, 1964, and a petition for temporary injunction was filed in the District Court on January 9. The petition alleged that the company had been countering the organizational activities of its employees with a long series of threats, intimidations and coercion of employees; surveillance of union meetings and employees' union activities; promising benefits to employees to persuade them to desist from union activities; harassing employees by unusual and stringent enforcement of rules relating to "breaks," smoking, talking, etc.; interrogating employees regarding visits by Board agents; altering working conditions; and making discriminatory discharges; all in interference with employees' right to engage in protected concerted activity. Violations of sections 8 (a) (3) and 8(a) (1) were charged. The Board's petition alleged that, unless the company were restrained, such unlawful conduct would continue pending the Board and court enforcement proceedings, and that it was essential, just and proper to enjoin the forbidden conduct in order to effectuate the policies of the Act and to avoid substantial irreparable injury to such policies, the employees, the union and the public interest.
The District Court issued a show cause order to which the company responded. At a pre-trial conference, promptly arranged for February 1, 1964, the court requested suggestions as to procedures to be followed. Counsel on both sides indicated willingness to offer oral testimony if the court should desire it, but when the Judge indicated his preference, because of the complexity of the facts and the anticipated consumption of time in taking oral testimony, to try the case on affidavits only, neither counsel expressed disagreement. In the course of the discussion the following statement was made to the court by counsel for the Board:
"Now, if your Honor should, on the other hand, decide to hear this case on affidavits, just about everything in the way of investigative evidence, at least, for what it\'s worth, will be contained in the affidavits submitted to your Honor and, of course, served upon opposing counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v. SHEET METAL WORKERS INT. ASS'N LOCAL 108
...court may, in the exercise of sound discretion, grant a preliminary injunction on the basis of affidavits. Cf. Johnston v. J. P. Stevens & Co., 341 F.2d 891 (4th Cir. 1965). As was stated by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith-Kline & French Laboratorie......
-
Muffley ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Spartan Mining Co.
...was at issue; rather, the parties simply disputed the application of that standard to the facts of the case. In Johnston v. J.P. Stevens & Co., 341 F.2d 891, 892 (4th Cir.1965), a brief per curiam opinion, we did review a § 10(j) injunction, but simply mentioned, without any analysis, the "......
-
JP Stevens & Co. v. NLRB
...29 U. S.C. § 160(j). See Johnston v. J. P. Stevens & Co., 234 F.Supp. 244, 247 (E. D.N.C.1964). See also Johnston v. J. P. Stevens & Co., 341 F.2d 891 (4th Cir. 1965) (per curiam) (affirming unreported denial of preliminary injunction where hearing was on affidavits 15 ALL EMPLOYEES Since t......
-
Timmins ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Narricot Industries
...is attained is within the sole discretion of the Board." Fieldcrest Cannon, 1994 WL 1027520, at *5-6; see also Johnston v. J.P. Stevens & Co., 341 F.2d 891, 892-93 (4th Cir. 1965). Accordingly, the court finds that the need for an extraordinary remedy in the form of a § 10(j) injunction is ......