National Labor Relations Bd. v. Beatrice Foods Co.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 4017.,4017. |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BEATRICE FOODS CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Melvin Pollack, Washington, D. C. (David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Floyd L. Rheam, Tulsa, Okla. (Valjean Biddison, Tulsa, Okla., on the brief), for respondent.
Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.
This case is before the court upon petition of the National Labor Relations Board1 for an enforcement of its order against the respondent, Beatrice Foods Company.2 The order was issued in a proceeding before the board originating from a charge of Tulsa General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union 523 A.F.L.3 claiming that the company was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. After extensive hearings, the substance of the board's finding was that the company, during a pre-election campaign for the decertification of the union, offered benefits for a union defeat and threatened reprisals for a union victory. The board's order directed the company to cease and desist from offering benefits or threatening reprisals, directly or indirectly, in order to discourage its employees from supporting the union, or any other labor organization, or in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join the union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The order also required the company to post appropriate notices in its plant which in effect notified the employees that the company would comply with the cease and desist order.
The sole question here is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the findings upon which the order is based. The findings, if supported by sufficient evidence on the record as a whole, are conclusive. Title 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e); N. L. R. B. v. Continental Oil Co., 10 Cir., 179 F.2d 552; N. L. R. B. v. Fairmont Creamery Co, 10 Cir., 169 F.2d 169; N. L. R. B. v. Sifers, 10 Cir., 171 F.2d 63.
The evidence, tending to support the board's findings, is briefly summarized as follows:
In December of 1947, the company, an Oklahoma corporation, was engaged in the purchase and processing of raw milk and in the sale in interstate commerce of dairy and food products. The union was the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees of the company and a petition for its decertification was filed and an election called for January 7, 1948. A few days after the filing of the petition, Early R. Cass, plant manager, summoned salesman Elder to his office for the purpose of discussing the union. Cass was in full charge of the plant and his actions were imputable to the company. Elder had been an employee for fourteen years and was an active and recognized union leader. In substance Elder was told that the company planned an extensive expansion program which could not be carried out if it continued to be "shackled" by the union and that he would like to get the union out of the plant so that he could operate without outside interference. He praised Elder as a salesman and said he could not understand why he was content to remain as such. He told him there was room for advancement for people who would work with the company and that he hoped that he would see fit to help defeat the union. Elder testified: "He led me to believe that I might go higher if we could get the union out."
The day before the election Cass called six meetings, one of which each employee of the company attended. He spoke for approximately 45 minutes to each of those meetings concerning the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Electric Co., Battery Prod., Cap. Dept. v. NLRB
...that they were not restrictive or coercive. N.L.R.B. v. Hill & Hill Truck Line, 5 Cir., 266 F.2d 883. See also N.L.R.B. v. Beatrice Foods Co., 10 Cir., 183 F. 2d 726; N.L.R.B. v. Fairmont Creamery Co., 10 Cir., 169 F.2d 169. In the last analysis, the function of drawing the rather nebulous ......
-
NLRB v. George Groh and Sons, 7375.
...R. B. v. Champa Linen Service Co., 10 Cir., 324 F.2d 28; N. L. R. B. v. Machine Products Co., 10 Cir., 198 F.2d 313; N. L. R. B. v. Beatrice Foods Co., 10 Cir., 183 F.2d 726. The findings of the Board, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive upon the court. 29 U.S.C. § 160(e); ......
-
Betts Baking Co. v. NLRB, 8813.
...union organization drive be successful. Such activity, if proved, clearly constitutes a violation of 8(a) (1). See N.L.R.B. v. Beatrice Foods Co., 10 Cir., 183 F.2d 726; N.L.R.B. v. Bear Brands Roofing, Inc., 10 Cir., 312 F.2d 616. Three of the alleged threats were uttered by employee Van S......
-
NLRB v. Automotive Controls Corporation
...an unfair labor practice * * * if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." 5 NLRB v. Beatrice Foods Co., 183 F.2d 726 (10th Cir. 1950); see generally, Annot. 35 A.L.R.2d 417 6 Serv-Air, Inc. v. NLRB, 395 F.2d 557, 561 (10th Cir. 1968); J. P. Stevens & ......