National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Adhesive Products Corp., No. 143

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtMEDINA, Circuit
Citation258 F.2d 403
Decision Date03 July 1958
Docket NumberDocket 24739.,No. 143
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. ADHESIVE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Respondent.

258 F.2d 403 (1958)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
ADHESIVE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Respondent.

No. 143, Docket 24739.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued January 15, 1958.

Decided July 3, 1958.


258 F.2d 404

Melvin Pollack, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. (Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Stephen Leonard, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Frederick U. Reel, Attorney, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Samuel Gottlieb, New York City (Harry Giesow and Gainsburg, Gottlieb, Levitan & Cole, New York City, on the brief), for respondent.

258 F.2d 405

Before MEDINA and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and GALSTON, District Judge.

MEDINA, Circuit Judge.

The issues litigated before the Board arose out of a labor dispute involving respondent Adhesive Products Corporation, a relatively small corporation manufacturing adhesives, coatings and related products at 1660 Boone Avenue, in the Bronx, New York City, and three unions. There was an employee's union, Adco Employees Association, with no affiliation outside Adhesive plant, which the Board found on sufficient evidence was not employer dominated, reversing the finding to the contrary by the Trial Examiner. Adhesive's first contract with Adco was signed on September 11, 1947. Over the years the employees had at various times threatened to join an outside union and they used Adco with some ingenuity in their dealings with Adhesive. It is probable that they did the same thing with conspicuous success in the labor dispute now before us for consideration. District 65, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, the successful party in these proceedings, started to organize the plant in December, 1954. Two of the twenty employees of Adhesive were truck drivers who, when business was slow, worked in the plant as well as on the trucks. In the midst of the controversy between Adhesive and District 65, Local 810, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, the third union, began picketing the plant, and this interfered with the delivery of Adhesive's products. Adhesive hired an independent trucking company with union-member employees to deliver its goods; the two truck drivers were temporarily laid off, and the pickets were removed. The two truck drivers, Hill and Sollecito, promptly joined Teamsters Local 810, were put back to work, the pickets did not return, and Adhesive later entered into a contract with Local 810. The arrangement with the independent trucking company was terminated. Adhesive then negotiated a new contract with Adco, with additional benefits and increased wages for the workers; and District 65 was left out in the cold. The period of time involved is from December, 1954 to and including early February, 1955.

The gist of the charges against Adhesive is that it refused to bargain with District 65 after it knew that practically all the employees had signed up with District 65; that it discouraged the employees from remaining with District 65 by claiming that it was a communist union, and by offering wage increases and improved working conditions if they reactivated Adco; that it interfered with the reactivation of Adco and contributed financial and other support to it; and that Local 810 was brought into the picture through the connivance of Adhesive as a means of weaning the men away from District 65; all in violation of Section 8(a) (1), Section 8(a) (2), Section 8(a) (3) and Section 8(a) (5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. Sections 158(a) (1), (2), (3) and (5). All these charges were sustained, except that Adco was found not to be employer dominated, as above stated, and the order we are asked to enforce directs Adhesive to cease and desist from assisting Adco and Local 810, or recognizing them as representatives of any of its employees until after it has complied with the terms of the order requiring Adhesive to bargain with District 65, and unless and until Adco or Local 810 has been certified by the Board as representative of the employees or any of them. The order also nullifies the existing contracts with Adco and Local 810 and directs Adhesive to bargain with District 65 and reimburse each of its employees in a sum of money equal to what has been checked off as dues to Adco or Local 810.

In order to apply the legal principles hereafter discussed we have examined the entire record which discloses "substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole" to support the charges and the order, except for the direction to pay back the dues checked off for Adco,

258 F.2d 406
but the case turns on certain issues of veracity between Maury T. Medwick, Adhesive's president, and the union organizer for District 65, Morris Doswell and Philip Vicinanza, a type of professional union organizer, who sought and obtained employment as an ordinary worker for Adhesive but spent considerable time and effort in stirring up the employees and backing up the efforts of Doswell. Vicinanza was later discharged. Except for the matter of repayment of dues to members of Adco, which we shall discuss later, we have concluded that there must be a reconsideration of the issues by the Board, in the light of further testimony by Doswell and Vicinanza, and any other witnesses the Board or the Trial Examiner may wish to hear. This is because there was a clear and wholly unwarranted curtailment of the cross-examination of Doswell and, while the rulings on the cross-examination of Vicinanza were technically correct, Adhesive may wish to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 practice notes
  • Smith v. Schlesinger, No. 74-1440
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 15, 1975
    ...Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395, 254 F.2d 314 (1958); NLRB v. Adhesive Prod. Corp., 258 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1958); Great Lakes Airlines v. CAB, 291 F.2d 354, 364 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 890, 82 S.Ct. 143, 7 L.Ed.2d 89 (1961), which ......
  • 82 20 Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, No. 12
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1961
    ...party had not made a motion in the Court of Appeals for leave to adduce additional evidence. N.L.R.B. v. Adhesive Products Corp., 2 Cir., 258 F.2d 403.7 Since the Court of Appeals erred in resting its decision on Consolidated Edison, in next becomes necessary to consider the Government's co......
  • Barbour v. People
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 18, 1994
    ...390 U.S. 955, 88 S.Ct. 1052, 19 L.Ed.2d 1150; Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. NLRB, 335 F.2d 749 (9th Cir.1964); NLRB v. Adhesive Prods. Corp., 258 F.2d 403 (2nd Cir.1958); and Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 254 F.2d 314, 327 In NLRB v. Adhesive Prods.......
  • Chief, Montgomery County Dept. of Police v. Jacocks, No. 209
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • November 5, 1981
    ...regard, but have merely applied the basic doctrine to administrative proceedings. See, for example, N.L.R.B. v. Adhesive Products Corp., 258 F.2d 403, 407-08 (2d Cir. 1958), and Harvey Aluminum (Incorporated) v. N.L.R.B., 335 F.2d 749, 753 (9th Cir. 1964), applying the rule to proceedings b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
40 cases
  • Smith v. Schlesinger, No. 74-1440
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 15, 1975
    ...Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395, 254 F.2d 314 (1958); NLRB v. Adhesive Prod. Corp., 258 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1958); Great Lakes Airlines v. CAB, 291 F.2d 354, 364 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 890, 82 S.Ct. 143, 7 L.Ed.2d 89 (1961), which ......
  • 82 20 Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, No. 12
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1961
    ...party had not made a motion in the Court of Appeals for leave to adduce additional evidence. N.L.R.B. v. Adhesive Products Corp., 2 Cir., 258 F.2d 403.7 Since the Court of Appeals erred in resting its decision on Consolidated Edison, in next becomes necessary to consider the Government's co......
  • Barbour v. People
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 18, 1994
    ...390 U.S. 955, 88 S.Ct. 1052, 19 L.Ed.2d 1150; Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. NLRB, 335 F.2d 749 (9th Cir.1964); NLRB v. Adhesive Prods. Corp., 258 F.2d 403 (2nd Cir.1958); and Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 254 F.2d 314, 327 In NLRB v. Adhesive Prods.......
  • Chief, Montgomery County Dept. of Police v. Jacocks, No. 209
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • November 5, 1981
    ...regard, but have merely applied the basic doctrine to administrative proceedings. See, for example, N.L.R.B. v. Adhesive Products Corp., 258 F.2d 403, 407-08 (2d Cir. 1958), and Harvey Aluminum (Incorporated) v. N.L.R.B., 335 F.2d 749, 753 (9th Cir. 1964), applying the rule to proceedings b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT