National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Blue Bell-Globe Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 4771.,4771. |
| Citation | 120 F.2d 974 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BLUE BELL-GLOBE MFG. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Thomas E. Harris, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen. (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Bertram Edises, Samuel Edes, and Ramey Donovan, all of Washington, D. C., Attys., National Labor Relations Board, on the brief), for petitioner.
Charles I. Dawson, of Louisville, Ky. (A. Shelby Winstead and Woodward, Dawson & Hobson, all of Louisville, Ky., and Hines & Boren, of Greensboro, N. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before PARKER, SOPER, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.
This is a petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The Board found that the respondent, the Blue Bell-Globe Manufacturing Company, by interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 157, had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of section 8(1) of the act, and by the discriminatory discharge of one Virgil T. Kivett had violated section 8(3) of the act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(1, 3). It dismissed, as not supported by the testimony, a charge of espionage and charges of discrimination in the lay off of one Oneta Dean. The order entered by the Board contained the usual cease and desist provisions and required the reinstatement of Kivett with back pay and with repayment of amounts received from work relief agencies. The Board consents that the requirement as to repayment of amounts received from work relief agencies be stricken from the order.
There is plenary evidence to sustain the findings of the Board as to interference, restraint and coercion with respect to antiunion utterances made to employees by Overman, the foreman in respondent's cutting room, Weant, its plant manager, and Shaner, its plant superintendent. Much of this evidence is denied by witnesses for respondent; but it is not our function to weigh conflicting testimony or pass upon the credibility of witnesses. We should say, however, that, in reaching this conclusion, we have not deemed it necessary to consider as supporting the findings the fact that respondent's officials stated on a number of occasions that no man would be discharged by respondent because he did not belong to a union or that they posted a notice to that effect. The argument is made that this was a definite refusal to bargain collectively in as much as the closed shop might be the subject of bargaining. We are not impressed by this argument, but we need not pass on the point, as the findings of the Board as to interference, restraint and coercion are amply sustained otherwise.
More troublesome is the question as to discriminatory discharge of Kivett. It is well settled that "the act does not interfere with the normal exercise of the right of the employer to select its employees or to discharge them." National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 615, 628, 81 L.Ed. 893, 108 A.L.R. 1352. "It is directed solely against the abuse of that right by interfering with the countervailing right of self-organization." Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 61 S.Ct. 845, 849, 85 L.Ed. ___. The employer can hire and fire at will, so long as action is not based on union membership or intent to interfere with the purposes of the act. And where a just ground of discharge appears, it is ordinarily a mere matter of speculation to say that the discharge was because of union membership. Cf. National Labor Relations Board v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., 4 Cir., 109 F.2d 128, 130; Martel Mills Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 114 F.2d 624. On the other hand, where there is discharge on account of union membership, the act may not be evaded by assigning some other ground as a pretext. Cf. Hartsell Mills Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 111 F.2d 291; National Labor Relations Board v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 4 Cir., 120 F.2d 532. Where the question arises, it is for the Board and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Baltimore T. Co.
...to substantial evidence in support of the findings. Piedmont Shirt Co. v. N. L. R. B., 4 Cir., 138 F.2d 738; N. L. R. B. v. Blue Bell Globe Mfg. Co., 4 Cir., 120 F.2d 974; Hartsell Mills Co. v. N. L. R. B., 4 Cir., 111 F.2d 291, 293. The rule applicable is thus stated in the last cited case......
-
National Labor Relations Bd. v. Clarksburg Pub. Co.
...Mould & Iron Corp. v. Labor Board, 7 Cir., 116 F. 2d 760. See also the opinion of this court filed this day in Labor Board v. Blue Bell-Globe Mfg. Co., 4 Cir., 120 F.2d 974. Considering Highland's opposition to the union, his activities to reduce the Guild's membership, the notice posted sh......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. West Ohio Gas Co.
...v. National Labor Relations Board, 313 U.S. 177, 186, 61 S.Ct. 845, 85 L.Ed. 1271, 133 A.L.R. 1217; National Labor Relations Board v. Blue Bell-Globe Mfg. Co., 4 Cir., 120 F.2d 974; American Smelting & Refining Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 126 F.2d 680; National Labor Rela......
-
Piedmont Shirt Co. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
...say that the findings as to discriminatory discharge and failure to re-employ are not so supported. National Labor Relations Board v. Blue Bell-Globe Mfg. Co., 4 Cir., 120 F.2d 974; Hartsell Mills Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 111 F.2d 291, 293. The rule applicable is thus ......