National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Crompton-Highland Mills, Inc., 12191.

• Decision Date: 05 May 1948
• Docket Number: No. 12191.,12191.
• Citation: 167 F.2d 662
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CROMPTON-HIGHLAND MILLS, Inc.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

167 F.2d 662 (1948)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CROMPTON-HIGHLAND MILLS, Inc.

No. 12191.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 5, 1948.

Fannie M. Boyls, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Ruth Weyand, Acting Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Ralph Williams, of Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.

Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.

WALLER, Circuit Judge.

The Board on the 21st of August, 1946, ordered the respondent to: (1) cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the Union; (2) (a) upon request, to bargain collectively with the Union in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other conditions of employment; (b) to post appropriate notices; and (c) to notify the Regional Director of the steps taken to comply.¹

In response to the Board's belated petition for the enforcement of its order, respondent asserts that it has complied with the order in that it has posted notices, has on two occasions, since the making of the order, bargained satisfactorily with the Union in respect to two subsequent, and general, increases in wages; and that on September 19, 1946, or after the making of the order, it had offered to sign a contract, which, in greater part, had been tentatively agreed upon with the Union in collective bargaining, if the provisions for the withholding of Union dues from wages of employees were eliminated, but that the Union refused to sign such contract without provisions for Union security therein. It offers to prove the facts set out above.

The Board's findings stated: "The Trial Examiner found that the respondent in violation of Section 8(1) and (5) of the Act, failed to bargain collectively with the Union as the statutory representative of the respondent's employees by refusing to furnish the Union with certain detailed information relating to the incentive wage plan and by granting a wage increase to its employees without consulting the Union. Although we agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion, we, however, rest our determination solely on the latter ground." (Italics supplied.)

Therefore, the only unfair labor practice found by the Board was the granting of a wage increase to its employees without consulting the Union.

It appears, however, to be undisputed in the evidence of Mr. Douty, the representative of the Union in the State, that when...