Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. National Labor Rel. Bd., 4911.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 4911.,4911. |
| Citation | 222 F.2d 938 |
| Parties | LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Allan A. Tepper, Boston, Mass., with whom Snyder & Tepper, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for petitioner.
John Francis Lawless, Washington, D. C., with whom David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Arnold Ordman, Atty., Washington, D. C., were on brief, for respondent.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.
The petitioner, Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company, pursuant to Sec. 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., seeks review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board and the Board has filed an answer to this petition and also a cross petition, under Sec. 10(e), requesting enforcement of its order.
The Board ordered the petitioner to cease and desist from unfair labor practices in violation of Sec. 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1) and (3). Affirmatively, the order requires petitioner to offer full reinstatement to James Gullotti and Alphonso Castagno, with back pay and to post the usual notices. The Board in its decision and order adopted the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the trial examiner and in addition found that certain statements made by petitioner's general superintendent and assistant general superintendent constituted violations of Sec. 8(a) (1) of the Act, the Board stating that the omission of such a formal finding in the trial examiner's report was due to inadvertent failure.
The petitioner contends that it was denied a fair hearing and due process of law in that: (1) the trial examiner improperly denied petitioner's request for postponement of the hearing on account of the illness of petitioner's general superintendent, (2) the Board erred in refusing to furnish petitioner with certain particulars and (3) the trial examiner was biased and prejudiced against the petitioner.
The petitioner further contends that the Board's findings as to the discriminatory discharges of Gullotti and Castagno were not supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole; that the Board erred in holding that the conduct for which Gullotti and Castagno were discharged was protected activity under Sec. 7 of the Act, and that the Board's finding that petitioner had interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in violation of Sec. 8(a) (1) is not supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.
The refusal of the trial examiner to postpone the hearing because of the illness of the petitioner's general superintendent was not an abuse of discretion and it did not result in prejudice to the petitioner nor in a denial of due process. See National Labor Relations Board v. Somerville Cream Co., 1 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 257; National Labor Relations Board v. Somerville Buick, 1 Cir., 1952, 194 F.2d 56. The weakness of petitioner's contention that this action of the trial examiner resulted in prejudice to its case is indicated by the fact that it was petitioner's counsel who originally requested that the general superintendent's testimony be taken by deposition in order not to delay the hearing, and this was exactly the procedure that was subsequently followed by the trial examiner.
It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the failure of the Board to furnish particulars with regard to the petitioner's alleged questioning and threatening of employees concerning union activities in violation of Sec. 8(a) (1). Petitioner was informed of the month when these alleged violations occurred and also that its general superintendent and assistant general superintendent were the officials who took part in these violations. Under these circumstances the information contained in the complaint was sufficient to acquaint the petitioner with the charges of the Board and the issues which would be considered at the hearing. See National Labor Relations Board v. S. W. Evans & Son, 3 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 427, 431.
The petitioner's contention that the trial examiner was biased and prejudiced against it does not warrant extended discussion. The argument in support of this charge seems to be principally centered upon the trial examiner's acceptance of the testimony of the Board's witnesses rather than that of the petitioner's witnesses. The Supreme Court said in National Labor Relations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brotherhood of Railroad Train. v. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & PR CO.
...Bd. v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., supra note 67, 337 U.S. at 659, 69 S.Ct. 1283. See also Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd., 222 F.2d 938, 940-941 (1st Cir. 1955); National Labor Relations Bd. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 161 F.2d 798, 799-800 (5th Cir. 1947). 86 See ......
-
Martin v. David T. Saunders Const. Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 91-12472-K.
... ... Supp. 893 ... Lynn MARTIN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, ... ...
-
NLRB v. Elliott-Williams Co.
...be put upon his defense." N. L. R. B. v. Piqua Munising Wood Prod. Co., 109 F.2d 552, 557 (6th Cir. 1940); Lloyd A. Fay Roofing Co. v. N. L. R. B., 222 F.2d 938, 940 (1st Cir. 1955); American Newspaper Pub. Ass'n v. N. L. R. B., 193 F.2d 782, 800 (7th Cir. 1951), modified on other grounds 3......
-
NLRB v. Hobart Brothers Company
...AFL-CIO. 1 N.L.R.B. v. Zimnox Coal, supra, enforcing in pertinent part, 140 N.L.R.B. 1229, 1232 (1963). 2 Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 222 F.2d 938, 941 (C.A. 1, 1955). 3 N.L.R.B. v. Peterson, supra, 157 F.2d at 4 N.L.R.B. v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., 229 F.2d 816, 818 (C.A. 5, 19......