Nachman Corporation v. NLRB, 14566.
| Decision Date | 07 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 14566.,14566. |
| Citation | 337 F.2d 421 |
| Parties | NACHMAN CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Fredric N. Richman, Sidney R. Korshak, David H. Mendelsohn, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, George H. Cohen, Atty., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Seymour Strongin, Attys., N. L. R. B., for respondent.
Before DUFFY, SCHNACKENBERG and KILEY, Circuit Judges.
This is a petition by Nachman Corporation to review and set aside an order1 of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) issued against petitioner on February 18, 1964, pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The Board, in its answer, requested enforcement of its order.
The Board, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, found petitioner discharged Joyce Burton because of her union activities, and because she gave testimony in support of a complaint against petitioner in an earlier unfair labor practice proceeding.
In June 1962, the Union2 engaged in an organizational campaign among petitioner's employees. A Board-conducted election was held on September 14, 1962 which the Union lost. The results of this election were set aside and a new election was held on February 15, 1963. Again, the Union lost.
In the meantime, on October 17, 1962 and thereafter, unfair labor practice charges were filed against petitioner alleging the discriminatory discharge of six employees and other acts and conduct in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. A hearing was held at which Joyce Burton testified as a witness for the Board concerning petitioner's interrogations, threats and surveillance. Her testimony was credited, and the Trial Examiner found that petitioner had engaged in conduct of this character.
The Trial Examiner further found petitioner had discriminatorily discharged three employees and had engaged in other acts of interference, restraint and coercion. In that proceeding, the Board adopted (with some modifications not here material) the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
Burton has been described as the second most active union enthusiast in petitioner's plant. She was first employed on January 29, 1962, and worked continuously until her discharge on March 4, 1963 except for a two-week lay-off during August 1962. During this period, Burton received three wage increases, the last one in the first part of February 1963.
As an assembler, Burton operated one of about twenty machines which produced mattress springs. The daily production quota established by the Company for Burton's machine was 74 units.
It is not disputed that Burton was a slow worker, but the quality of her work was good. She had been employed by petitioner for some fourteen months without any serious complaints regarding her job performance. There were periods when she made her quota once a week yet, at no time, was there any threat of discharge due to the manner in which she carried out her job assignment.
Burton was assigned to machine No. 9 when she worked on the night shift. She testified her work was affected due to mechanical difficulties with her machine, and that it required frequent repairs. She also complained as to the quality and suitability of materials which were, at times, furnished to her.
Dennis Kellogg was a foreman of the second or night shift. When Burton was assigned to that shift3 and was telling Kellogg of her experiences on the day shift, Kellogg told her she would not have to put up with that "rigamaroll" on the night shift as it didn't make any difference to him whether the union was in or out. On another occasion, Kellogg warned Burton — "I had better tell you right now, they are going to ride you like they did the others."
Burton replied to Kellogg saying — "As long as my machine runs and I have good material to work with, I will keep making production and if I don't, I will tell your Dad4 to speak to you about it."
On the night of March 4, 1963, foreman Miller took Burton to his office and informed her for the first time that the Company was having a cut-back in the work force, and that she "had been picked as one to go." Burton asked if she were being laid off because of her union activities. Miller said it was because of her production. Burton replied that she could make production if she had good materials and a good machine. At that point, Superintendent ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Challenge-Cook Brothers of Ohio, Inc.
...not discharged, does not disprove the fact that an employee's discharge is based upon an unlawful discriminatory motive. Nachman Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 337 F.2d 421 (C.A. Our scope of review is limited. Section 160(e), Title 29, U.S.C., provides in part: "The findings of the Board with......
-
Borek Motor Sales, Inc. v. NLRB
...National Labor Relations Board v. Symons Manufacturing Co., 328 F.2d 835, 837 (7th Cir. 1964); Nachman Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 337 F.2d 421, 423-424 (7th Cir. 1964); see also National Labor Relations Board v. Stafford Trucking, Inc., 371 F.2d 244, 247 (7th Cir. 1966). In th......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Centra, Inc.
...animus simply by citing the fact that some union adherents were rehired while some nonactivists were not. In Nachman Corp. v. NLRB, 337 F.2d 421, 424 (7th Cir.1964), the court held that "a discriminating motive, otherwise established, is not disproved by an employer's proof that it did not ......
-
Family Foods, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...employees." Birch Run Welding, 761 F.2d at 1180; accord Rust Eng'g Co. v. NLRB, 445 F.2d 172, 174 (6th Cir.1971); Nachman Corp. v. NLRB, 337 F.2d 421, 424 (7th Cir.1964) ("[D]iscriminatory motive, otherwise established, is not disproved by an employer's proof that it did not weed out all un......