National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Scientific Nutrition Corp., 11
| Decision Date | 24 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | 694.,No. 11,11 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. SCIENTIFIC NUTRITION CORPORATION (INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A.F.L., et al. (Intervenors). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Assistant General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Attorney, NLRB, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
J. Paul St. Sure and Edward H. Moore, Oakland, Cal., for respondent.
Tobriner & Lazarus, Mathew O. Tobriner and Stanley Neyhart, San Francisco, Cal., for intervenors.
Before MATHEWS, HEALY, and POPE, Circuit Judges.
This case is in certain aspects a companion case to N. L. R. B. v. C. W. Hume Co., 9 Cir., 180 F.2d 445, and N. L. R. B. v. Flotill Products, Inc., 9 Cir., 180 F.2d 441.
The respondent, Scientific Nutrition Corporation, carried on its cannery business under the name of its predecessor Capolino Packing Corporation, and will be referred to in this opinion as Capolino. In 1941 Capolino entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Cannery Workers Union Local 22382, a local affiliated directly with the American Federation of Labor. The union will be referred to as Local 22382. By the agreement mentioned the parties adopted the Master collective bargaining contract existing between the employers' association, known as California Processors & Growers, Inc., and the State Council of Cannery Unions as the representative of the various AFL cannery workers' unions in the area. Capolino was not itself a member of Processors & Growers, Inc., but was what is called an independent. In 1944 Capolino sold the plant to respondent. The latter, under the same management as before, maintained unchanged its predecessor's relations with Local 22382.
In May 1945, while the contract relationship between employer and union was in force and effect, the AFL transferred jurisdiction over Local 22382, together with other similar locals, to the Teamsters, an AFL international union. Dissatisfaction with the transfer developed among members of Local 22382, and some of them, including an employee named Gus Cedar, withdrew to form an independent union, affiliated with what was called the Cannery Workers Council. These seceders sought to have their new organization recognized by Capolino as the bargaining representative in lieu of the Teamsters. However, the executive council of the AFL insisted on the program; and to make sure that the assignment of jurisdiction to the Teamsters was properly carried out President Green of AFL, on May 10, 1945 appointed a trustee for Local 22382. We do not understand the Board to question that the Teamsters, by virtue of this authoritative assignment, effectually succeeded to the status and rights of Local 22382 and stood in the latter's shoes as bargaining representative of the employees.
On May 14, 1945 Capolino's manager called the employees together and informed them that the Teamsters were taking over the plant and that there was nothing the employees or Capolino could do other than go along and conform with the new dispensation. He further admonished them that if they did not join the Teamsters the latter would stop deliveries and bring about a cessation of the plant's operations, with resultant loss of employment. The employee Gus Cedar, one of the recalcitrants as above stated, was warned in the latter part of May by Capolino's plant superintendent that persistence in his refusal to join the Teamsters would necessarily cause him to be let out. Shortly afterwards on solicitation by two Teamster representatives Cedar refused to join up with the Teamsters and was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton Foundry & M. Co. v. INTERNATIONAL M. & F. WKRS.
...In our opinion, this contemplates valid oral agreements where neither party requests a written instrument. N. L. R. B. v. Scientific Nutrition Corp., 9 Cir., 180 F.2d 447, 449; United Shoe Workers v. Le Danne Footwear, D.C.Mass., 83 F.Supp. 714. Nor do we agree with appellees' contention th......
-
Certified Corp. v. Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers, Local 996, IBT, 77-3231
...contracts between employer and the union to be in any particular form, or that they be reduced to writing." NLRB v. Scientific Nutrition Corp., 180 F.2d 447, 449 (9th Cir. 1950); See 29 U.S.C. § 158(d); John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, 376 U.S. at 550-51, 84 S.Ct. 909; NLRB v. Ralph Printin......
-
Lerwill v. Inflight Services, Inc.
...v. Universal Services, Inc. and Associates, 467 F.2d 579 (9th Cir. 1972) (hereinafter the "Amchitka case"), and NLRB v. Scientific Nutrition Corp., 180 F.2d 447 (9th Cir. 1950). The Amchitka case involved a very unusual set of facts, and, as will shortly be evident, the Court of Appeals for......
-
Cappa v. Wiseman
...real content of individual agreements. Courts have therefore refused to impose upon themselves this handicap. NLRB v. Scientific Nutrition Corp., 180 F.2d 447 (9th Cir. 1950); Lewis v. Lowry, 295 F.2d 197 (4th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 977, 82 S.Ct. 478, 7 L.Ed.2d 438 (1962). In NL......