NAT. LABOR RELATIONS BD. v. LOCOMOTIVE FINISHED MAT. CO., 12446.

• Decision Date: 18 February 1943
• Docket Number: No. 12446.,12446.
• Citation: 133 F.2d 233
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. LOCOMOTIVE FINISHED MATERIAL CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

133 F.2d 233 (1943)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. LOCOMOTIVE FINISHED MATERIAL CO.

No. 12446.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 18, 1943.

Thomas E. Shroyer, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D. C. (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Associate Gen. Counsel, Howard Lichtenstein, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Frank Donner and Eleanor Schwartzbach, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

H. Templeton Brown, of Chicago, Ill. (Richard L. Douglas and Robert A. Brown, Jr., both of St. Joseph, Mo., on the brief), for respondent.

Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

The respondent opposes the granting of this petition for the enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board requiring the respondent to desist from interfering with the rights of its employees guaranteed by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S. C.A. § 151 et seq. The respondent asserts that there was no substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the respondent had interfered with the rights of its employees within the meaning of § 8(1) of the Act.

The respondent is a corporation engaged in interstate commerce, with its main plant and place of business at Atchison, Kansas. It also has a foundry at St. Joseph, Missouri, at which, in normal times, it employs from 65 to 86 men. In the spring of 1941, the International Moulders and Foundry Workers Union of North America (affiliated with the American Federation of Labor) undertook to organize the employees of the respondent at its St. Joseph plant. The largest number of applications for membership secured by the Union was twenty-nine. A local chapter of the Union was formed, but the members lost interest in it, and the attempt of the Union to perfect organization of the employees of the plant failed. Attributing this failure to interference by the respondent, the Union filed charges with the Board, and, after the usual proceedings, the Board found that the respondent had violated § 8(1) of the Act, and entered the order in suit.

This controversy is in reality not one between the respondent and its employees. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the respondent has had any quarrel with the men working for it or that it has discriminated against any employee or group of employees because of their union affiliations. The Board's finding of interference is based upon the conduct and remarks of four supervisory employees of the respondent. Two of the supervisors were connected with the plant at Atchison, and the other two were the Superintendent and the General Foreman of the plant at St. Joseph. We doubt that the evidence relative to the remarks or conduct of the supervisory employees at the Atchison plant of the respondent would justify any inference of interference with the rights of the employees...