National Labor Rel. Board v. Bear Brand Hosiery Co., 8060.

• Citation: 131 F.2d 731
• Decision Date: 27 November 1942
• Docket Number: No. 8060.,8060.
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

131 F.2d 731 (1942)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO.

No. 8060.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

November 27, 1942.

Robert B. Watts, of Washington, D. C., Lester Asher, of Chicago, Ill., Ernest A. Gross, Gerhard P. Van Arkel, Louis Libbin, and Armin Uhler, all of Washington, D. C., for National Labor Relations Board.

David R. Clarke, John Harrington, and Albert J. Smith, all of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Before MAJOR and KERNER, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.

MAJOR, Circuit Judge.

This is a petition for the enforcement of the Board's order issued against respondent, pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. Jurisdiction is not in dispute, and the usual proceedings were had before the Board.

Inasmuch as respondent questions the validity of only a part of the Board's order, we see no occasion to enter a discussion of the findings, or proof pertaining to parts of the order not under attack. In approaching that portion of the order under attack, it is sufficient to observe that the record discloses a most unfavorable background of hostility toward organized labor, and especially the unions involved. In fact, to state that respondent's course of conduct over a long period of time was inexcusable, is putting it mildly.

The part of the Board's decision now under attack is the finding and conclusion that respondent violated Section 8 (3) of the Act by discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John Williams, James Riordan, Lester Sovinski, Willis Donovan and Martin Brueggert, together with ten other employees listed in Appendix A to the Board's order. According to the findings of the Board, the five named employees were discriminatorily discharged on September 17, 1941, and the ten employees named in the appendix went on a strike in protest of the unfair labor practices directed at those named. The latter were ordered reinstated and to be made whole for any loss of pay occasioned by respondent's discrimination. Those named in the appendix were ordered reinstated with back pay from September 30, 1941, the date on which respondent denied their application for reinstatement.

Respondent argues that there is no substantial evidence in support of the Board's finding that the five named employees were discriminatorily discharged, and, there being no discrimination in this respect, the Board's order directing their reinstatement is invalid. It is not disputed but that the order of reinstatement was proper if the five named employees were discriminatorily discharged. Also, in that event, the ten employees named in the appendix had a just grievance for the strike, that is, the unfair labor practice directed at the five named employees, and were entitled to be reinstated upon application.

Thus, the only question for decision is whether the Board's finding as to discriminatory discharge is substantially supported. The employees involved were employed in the power house and had charge of the engines and equipment used in generating power for respondent's factory. The Board contends that the discharges and the strike were the result of the employees' refusal to sign individual employment contracts proposed by respondent. The essential part of the contract is as follows:

"Whereas, the parties hereto both recognize the fact the neglect or desertion of duty in a Power Plant may jeopardize the lives and bodily safety of men and women and may jeopardize the safety and security of the plant and all its contents:

"It is hereby agreed for the consideration as stated below by the Bear Brand Hosiery Co., which will subsequently be referred to as the Company, as party of...