National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Cen-Tennial Cotton Gin Co., 13573.

• Decision Date: 30 January 1952
• Docket Number: No. 13573.,13573.
• Citation: 193 F.2d 502
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CEN-TENNIAL COTTON GIN CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

193 F.2d 502 (1952)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CEN-TENNIAL COTTON GIN CO.

No. 13573.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

January 11, 1952.

Rehearing Denied January 30, 1952.

Alice Andrews, Attorney, NLRB, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Cnsl. NLRB, and A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Cnsl. NLRB, all of Washington, D. C., G. Hume Cofer, Austin, Tex., for petitioner.

Wm. B. Spann, Jr., Henry J. Miller, Atlanta, Ga., S. E. Kelly, Jr., Columbus, Ga., for respondent.

Before HOLMES, BORAH, and STRUM, Circuit Judges.

BORAH, Circuit Judge.

This case is before the court on petition of the National Labor Relations Board, seeking enforcement of its order requiring respondent to cease and desist from discouraging membership in the International Association of Machinists or any other labor organization of its employees by discriminatorily discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or by otherwise discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment; from interrogating its employees in any manner concerning their union affiliation, activities, or sympathies; and from in any manner interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.¹ The order further directed respondent to offer reinstatement to two employees and to make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, and to post appropriate notices.

Specifically, the Board found that two well-timed general wage increases were granted by respondent during periods of union organizational activity with the purpose and for the intent of inducing its employees to refrain from joining or remaining members of the union in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act; that respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees by questioning them with respect to matters of union concern in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act; that respondent adopted and used employment application forms requiring the disclosure by prospective employees of their union affiliations in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act; and that respondent, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, discriminatorily discharged Wonza Welch and Willie R. Jernigan because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the union.

Insisting that the findings are wholly erroneous, respondent urges upon us that the order of the Board should not be enforced because, viewed upon the record as a whole, the findings are without legal support. We are not wholly in agreement with respondent's position. Our examination of the entire record leaves us in no doubt but that there is substantial evidence to support the Board's findings except as to the finding that respondent discriminatorily discharged Jernigan because of his membership and activities on behalf of the union.

Respondent contends that Jernigan was discharged because he welded an excessive number of defective sign bars. On the other hand, the Board found and is here insisting that the record fully supports its finding that Jernigan was discharged for union membership and activities. The record is silent as to Jernigan's union activities except for the fact that he attended an organizational meeting and was a member of the union, but many of his fellow employees were likewise union members and attended the same meeting and they were not fired. In short, Jernigan's union activity consisted only of his being a member of the...