N.L.R.B. v. Triangle Publications, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 73-1791 and 73-1853,s. 73-1791 and 73-1853 |
| Citation | 500 F.2d 597 |
| Parties | 86 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2939, 87 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2128, 74 Lab.Cas. P 10,174 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. TRIANGLE PUBLICATIONS, INC., Respondent. TRIANGLE PUBLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Allison W. Brown, Jr., David S. Fishback, Peter G. Nash, John S. Irving, Patrick H. Hardin, Elliott Moore, Washington, D.C., for National Labor Relations Board.
Edward N. Schwartz, Maplewood, N.J., for Triangle Publications, Inc.
Before ROSENN and HUNTER, Circuit Judges, and HANNUM, District Judge.
This case is before the court on the application of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order, issued June 29, 1973, against Triangle Publications, Inc. (the Company) and on a cross-petition for review of the Board's order filed by the Company. The question presented is whether substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board's conclusion that the Company violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (3) (1970). We have concluded that there is substantial evidence to support the Board's decision and that its order should be enforced in full. 1
The 8(a)(1) violation is based upon an incident involving Friedlander, an employee of the Company, and Grossman, who at all relevant times was in charge of the Hightstown plant where Friedlander was employed. On February 3, 1972 Friedlander spent a part of the work day collecting the names and addresses of his co-workers so that a union could get in touch with them. 2 Later in the day, a conversation occurred between Friedlander and Grossman, and, according to Friedlander, a second conversation occurred on the following day.
It is the nature of Grossman's comments during these discussions, as found by the Administrative Law Judge and adopted by the Board, that form the basis for the 8(a)(1) violation. These findings are as follows:
On the basis of these facts the Administrative Law Judge drew this conclusion:
'I find the interrogation on these two occasions, accompanied by Grossman's clear indication that it was not a smart thing to do and his statement that Jack Flood was furious about it, sufficient to make the interrogation coercive and to imply reprisals might be taken against Friedlander for his activity.'
The Company attacks the findings and conclusion in two ways. First, it claims the record as a whole lacks substantial evidence to support the findings of fact. We cannot agree. While it is true that the Administrative Law Judge essentially accepted Friedlander's recollection of the conversations and rejected Grossman's we do not find this objectionable. Since both Grossman and Friedlander had a motive for lying, 3 and since neither told an inherently incredible story, the judge was making a reasonable credibility determination when he chose to credit Friedlander's account. We cannot overturn his findings of fact.
The Company's second contention is that even if we accept the facts as found by the Administrative Law Judge, they do not constitute a violation of 8(a) (1). We reject this contention as well.
In Local 542, Int'l Union of Operating Eng. v. N.L.R.B., 328 F.2d 850 (3d Cir. 1964), this Court outlined the following test for determining whether a violation has occurred:
Id. at 852-853. In addition, our precedent indicates that we must defer to the Board's superior expertise when we review its determinations on this issue.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FDRLST Media, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
...(statements by company founder during a speech to employees that implied retaliation if union won election); NLRB v. Triangle Publ'ns, Inc. , 500 F.2d 597, 598 (3d Cir. 1974) (supervisor's questions to employee who was "collecting the names and addresses of his co-workers so that a union co......
-
Hedstrom Co., a Subsidiary of Brown Group, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...S.Ct. 919, 25 L.Ed.2d 96 (1968).25 See, e.g., NLRB v. Sky Wolf Sales, 470 F.2d 827, 803-31 (9th Cir. 1972).26 NLRB v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 500 F.2d 597, 598 (3d Cir. 1974) (quoting Local 542, Operating Engineers v. NLRB, 328 F.2d 850, 852-53 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 826, 85......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Eagle Material Handling, Inc.
...Packing Co., supra, 395 U.S. at 620, 89 S.Ct. 1918; Mon River Towing, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, 421 F.2d at 9; NLRB v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 500 F.2d 597, 599 (3d Cir. 1974). Eagle does not suggest that the company was not responsible for the statement of supervisor Desnoyers, see NLRB v.......
-
N.L.R.B. v. W.C. McQuaide, Inc.
..."may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate employees in the exercise of rights protected under the Act." NLRB v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 500 F.2d 597, 598 (3d Cir. 1974). 34 Moreover, in Mon River Towing, Inc. v. NLRB, supra at 9, this Court As the economic dependence of employees on......
-
Law, Fact, and the Threat of Reversal From Above
...No412 F.2d 37 Yes Yes415 F.2d 78 Yes No416 F.2d 243 Yes No447 F.2d 290 Yes Yes463 F.2d 256 No Yes469 F.2d 498 Yes No489 F.2d 1247 Yes Yes500 F.2d 597 Yes Yes501 F.2d 191 Yes Yes505 F.2d 355 Yes No509 F.2d 293 No Yes514 F.2d 852 Yes Yes531 F.2d 364 Yes Yes532 F.2d 902 Yes Yes543 F.2d 395 No ......