N.L.R.B. v. Kent Corp., 75--1392
| Decision Date | 08 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1392,75--1392 |
| Citation | 530 F.2d 610 |
| Parties | 91 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3077, 78 Lab.Cas. P 11,378 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. KENT CORPORATION, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Elliott Moore, Deputy Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Elinor Hudley Stillman, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Walter C. Phillips, Director, Region 10, N.L.R.B., Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
C. V. Stelzenmuller, Birmingham, Ala., for respondent.
Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board (Alabama Case).
Before TUTTLE, GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.
The Board found that the employer Kent: interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in violation of § 8(a)(1); violated §§ 8(a)(2) and (1) by interfering with the internal affairs and administration of the unaffiliated local union and by assisting it in opposing an organizational campaign conducted by the Boilermakers' Union; violated §§ 8(a)(3) and (1), by discriminatorily discharging nine employees; violated §§ 8(a)(4), (3) and (1) by discharging six employees who signed unfair labor practice charges filed against Kent by the Boilermakers and refused to withdraw their names from those charges.
Kent has not established that it was the victim of an unfair hearing rising to the level of violation of due process or of prejudicial error requiring that we deny enforcement. 1
Except for the claim that it did not get a fair hearing, Kent does not contest the findings of restraint, coercion and interference, so we need not discuss them beyond observing that the record fully supports the Board's finding that Kent 'engaged in a massive assault on the rights of employees under the Act for the purpose of keeping the Association (the unaffiliated local union) in and the Boilermakers out.'
Of 15 discharges Kent questions seven. The only one meriting discussion is that of Calvin Wright. He had been elected president of the unaffiliated local union on March 2. Shortly thereafter Kent officials characterized that election as illegal and called for a new election, which was held. Supervisory employees opposed Wright but he was elected again. Soon thereafter, on March 23, Wright was laid off on the asserted ground that his job as day shift janitor was abolished because of a materials shortage. A third election was held a few days later and another person chosen as president. On April 3 or 4, Wright was recalled for a job as night shift janitor. That job also had been 'abolished' on March 23 but had been 'reinstated.' There was credited testimony that Wright was told the night job required him to drive a 'highster' (Hyster), or forklift, to pick up trash and scrap...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bristol-Meyers Co. v. F. T. C.
... ... 168, 95 S.Ct. 1491, 44 L.Ed.2d 57 (1965) and NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck ... & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 ... at 149, 95 S.Ct. 1491 (Quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. United States, 157 F.Supp. 939, 946, 141 Ct.Cl. 38, 49 (1958). See ... 1491; Mead Data II, supra, 188 U.S.App.D.C. at 55, 575 F.2d at 936; Kent Corp. v. NLRB, 530 F.2d 610 at 619-620; Sterling Drug, Inc. v. FTC, supra, ... ...
-
Kent Corp. v. N.L.R.B.
... ... § 552. 1 The documents in issue are 'Final Investigation Reports' prepared by staff members of the NLRB's Tenth Regional Office after they investigated unfair labor practice charges filed against plaintiff Kent. Some of these reports contain marginal ... ...
-
United Steelworkers of America v. N.L.R.B.
...judgment and expertise.35 See, e. g., Kent Corp., 212 N.L.R.B. 595, 613 (1974), enforced in relevant part, NLRB v. Kent Corp., 530 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1976); Decaturville Sportswear Co. v. NLRB, 406 F.2d 886, 888-89 (6th Cir. 1969); United Dairy Farmers Cooperative Ass'n, 242 N.L.R.B. No. 17......
-
U.S. v. Dollar Rent A Car Systems, Inc.
... ... Peterson v. Crown Financial Corp., 661 F.2d 287 (3rd Cir.1981) (holding that in a diversity case involving ... ...