N.L.R.B. v. Inland Empire Meat Co.
| Decision Date | 14 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-2401,78-2401 |
| Citation | 611 F.2d 1235 |
| Parties | 103 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2746, 88 Lab.Cas. P 11,969 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INLAND EMPIRE MEAT COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
James Y. Callear, (argued), NLRB, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
David G. Moore, Reid, Babbage & Coil, Riverside, Cal., on brief for respondent.
Petition to Review a Decision of the National Labor Relations Board.
Before SNEED and TANG, Circuit Judges, and PFAELZER *, District Judge.
The National Labor Relations Board (Board) seeks enforcement of its order directing Inland Empire Meat Co. to cease discouraging union activity through threats or the discharge of employees and to compensate one employee for lost wages due to wrongful discharge. Inland asserts that the Board was time barred from complaining about certain activities occurring in November and December 1976 and further argues that there was insubstantial evidence to support the Board's findings.
DISCUSSION:
(1) Statute of Limitations Issue
On May 3, 1977, Harold Finnigan, then a former employee of Inland, filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that Inland had unlawfully terminated his employment on November 15, 1976 because of his union activities. The charge further alleged that the company had violated Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) by "other acts and conduct". Shortly thereafter, a complaint was issued charging that Inland had violated the Act by terminating Finnigan. The complaint was amended on August 17, 1977, and specifically alleged additional unlawful acts by the company during November and December 1976 as to other employees. These additional allegations were in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the amended complaint which the company argues violated the six month statute of limitations in Section 10(b) of the Act. That section provides that no unfair labor practice complaint can be issued unless a charge is first filed with the Board within six months of the occurrence of the unfair labor practice.
The company notes that the only charge filed with the Board was Finnigan's charge of May 3, 1977 which, admittedly, was filed within 6 months of the November-December 1976 incidents. However, the company argues that Finnigan's charge only refers to his firing on November 15, 1976 and makes no references to any other unfair labor practices in November and December 1976. Hence, they urge that no charge was filed with respect to the November and December 1976 instances alleged in paragraphs 6 and 7 concerning other company activities. The Board urges that Finnigan's charge did refer to these instances because the charge generally alleged that Inland had violated the Section 7 rights of "its employees" by "other acts and conduct." At issue is whether this general allegation of "other acts and conduct" in Finnigan's charge of May 3, 1977 is sufficient to authorize the Board to complain of the November-December 1976 incidents as alleged in amended paragraphs 6 and 7.
Inland relies on cases which are not on point factually. In both NLRB v. I. B. S. Mfg. Co., 210 F.2d 634 (5th Cir. 1951) and Joanna Cotton Mills v. NLRB, 176 F.2d 749 (4th Cir. 1949) there were two charges: an original charge filed within six months and an amended charge not filed within six months. The courts held that the untimely amended charges did not relate back to the original charge since they contained entirely new and different unfair labor practices. In Knickerbocker Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 109 NLRB 1195 (1954), none of the charges were filed within six months of the unfair labor practice, and were thus held untimely under Section 10(b). The instant case does not involve an untimely charge but merely whether the Finnigan charge of May 3, 1976 is sufficient.
The Board, however, cites one case closely on point. In NLRB v. Central Pwr. & Light Co., 425 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1970), the original charge alleged a discriminatory discharge of an employee and stated the company had violated section 7 rights "by other acts and conduct." An amended complaint contained a specific allegation that the company had an illegal no-solicitation rule. At issue was whether the original charge was legally sufficient to include reference to the no-solicitation rule. The court provided these guidelines:
The charge is thus not intended to be a detailed pleading or to specify the issues ultimately to be raised before the Trial Examiner; the Board's complaint serves that function. All that the requirement is really concerned about is that the instigation of an investigation and complaint proceed under a formal charge made by the party aggrieved and not from the Board's own initiative.2 Accordingly, general allegations such as that the employer "by other acts and conduct * * * interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in section 7 of the Act," as the charge here alleged, are legally sufficient to cause inclusion of other acts if they are sufficiently related to the specific acts alleged. And sufficient relation has generally been found between acts that are part of the same course of conduct, such as a single campaign against a union. (citations omitted.)
The court concluded that the charge had authorized the Board to complain of the no-solicitation rule because "the events complained of were all part of the same alleged anti-union campaign, were close together in time, and were clearly covered by the general language of the formal charge . . ." Id. These...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.E.O.C. v. Children's Hosp. Medical Center of Northern California
...practice charge is a jurisdictional defense. See Bruce Duncan Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 590 F.2d 1304 (4th Cir.1979); NLRB v. Inland Empire Meat Co., 611 F.2d 1235 (9th Cir.1979). See also 29 U.S.C. Sec. 160(b). The majority's decision clashes with all of these This circuit's decision in Pacific M......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Nevis Industries, Inc.
...by a clear preponderance of the evidence. NLRB v. Max Factor & Co., 640 F.2d 197 at 205 (9th Cir. 1980); NLRB v. Inland Empire Meat Co., 611 F.2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 1979). There is substantial evidence on the record viewed as a whole supporting the finding that Nevis violated section 8(a)......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Brooks Cameras, Inc.
...is relevant to a determination that a firing was the result of employer hostility toward union activity. See NLRB v. Inland Empire Meat Co., 611 F.2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 1979). It does not in itself prove, however, that Brooks would intentionally employ illegal means to keep the union out ......
-
Rayner v. N.L.R.B.
...of the evidence demonstrates that they are incorrect. NLRB v. Carilli, 648 F.2d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 1981); NLRB v. Inland Empire Meat Co., 611 F.2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 1980). Our review of the record finds no such preponderance of the evidence to disturb the Board's adoption of the ALJ's ......