National Labor Relations Bd. v. United Biscuit Co., No. 14829.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtGARDNER, , and WOODROUGH and COLLET, Circuit
Citation208 F.2d 52
Docket NumberNo. 14829.
Decision Date10 December 1953
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. UNITED BISCUIT CO. OF AMERICA, UNION BISCUIT DIVISION.

208 F.2d 52 (1953)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
v.
UNITED BISCUIT CO.
OF AMERICA, UNION BISCUIT DIVISION.

No. 14829.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

November 19, 1953.

Rehearing Denied December 10, 1953.


Bernard Dunau, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. (George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., and H. T. Herrick, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, on the brief), for petitioner.

Harold A. Thomas, Jr., St. Louis, Mo. (N. W. Hartman, and Fordyce, Mayne, Hartman, Renard & Stribling, St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for respondent.

Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and WOODROUGH and COLLET, Circuit Judges.

GARDNER, Chief Judge.

The National Labor Relations Board has petitioned for the enforcement of an order issued by it against the United Biscuit Company of America, Union Biscuit Division, requiring it to cease and desist from engaging in certain acts found by the Board to be violative of section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1). On August 9, 1951, Local 611, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L., filed with the Board a charge of unfair labor practices against

208 F.2d 53
respondent based upon which the Board issued its complaint charging that respondent had engaged and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. In the complaint as amplified by a bill of particulars it was charged in substance that respondent was guilty of: (1) Threatening that those who joined the Union would not be promoted to supervisory positions. (2) Threatening to close the plant to discourage the employees from engaging in concerted activities. (3) Interrogating employees, and (4) soliciting withdrawals from the Union. At the time of hearing before the Examiner the Union which had filed the charges moved to dismiss the complaint based thereon. This motion was denied and on hearing the Examiner exonerated the respondent of the charge of threatening that those who joined the Union would not be promoted to supervisory positions and of the charge of threatening to close the plant to discourage the employees from engaging in concerted activities, but found against respondent on the other two charges. Respondent filed exceptions to the Examiner's report which the Board overruled and thereupon adopted and approved the report and issued the cease and desist order which it now seeks to have enforced

Respondent resists the petition for enforcement of this cease and desist order on the ground that the findings of the Board are not sustained by substantial evidence.

Respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of bakery products and has a branch or division in the city of St. Louis, Missouri. At its plant in St. Louis it employs about 500 employees. These employees may be classified as about 355 shipping and production employees, 12 drivers and 20 route salesmen. All the employees, save the route salesmen, are represented by two different local unions. In July, 1951, a campaign was initiated to organize the route salesmen and certain of the salesmen communicated with Mr. Charles E. Kennedy, the president and officer in charge of the company's business at St. Louis, advising him that they had been approached by organizers for the Union and asking his advice. Following this incident, at a regular weekly meeting of the route salesmen Mr. Kennedy made a talk in which he stated to the men that he was aware of the federal laws and that while he had no right to threaten, intimidate or coerce them, or make them any promises, he did have a right to talk to them just as the Union did; that he wanted it clearly understood that they could join a union or not, whatever they wanted to do. He did not ask anyone whether they had stated anything or signed anything. In response to questions from some of the men Kennedy delivered a talk comparing respondent's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp., Laundry Drivers and Helpers Local No. 88, No. 88
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 26, 1960
    ...of union withdrawal letters (Texarkana Bus Co. v. N. L. R. B., 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 480, 483; N. L. R. B. v. United Biscuit Co., 8 Cir., 208 F.2d 52, 55, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 934, 74 S.Ct. 629, 98 L.Ed. 1085); unequal advantages conferred upon the inside union that are denied to the outsi......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Solo Cup Company, No. 15524.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 16, 1956
    ...Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 567, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 981, 75 S.Ct. 572, 99 L.Ed. 764. In N. L. R. B. v. United Biscuit Co., 8 Cir., 1953, 208 F.2d 52, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 934, 74 S.Ct. 629, 98 L.Ed. 1085, this 237 F.2d 523 court stated the rule, 208 F.2d at page "In this proceed......
  • Lion Oil Company v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 15158.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 5, 1957
    ...by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole shall be conclusive." In N. L. R. B. v. United Biscuit Co., 8 Cir., 1953, 208 F.2d 52, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 934, 74 S.Ct. 629, 98 L.Ed. 1085, this court stated the rule, 208 F.2d at page "In this proceeding we are n......
  • NLRB v. Elias Brothers Big Boy, Inc., No. 15298.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • February 12, 1964
    ...et al., 325 F.2d 360 (C.A.6), supra; N. L. R. B. v. Flemingsburg Mfg. Co., 300 F.2d 182 (C.A.6); N. L. R. B. v. United Biscuit Co. etc., 208 F.2d 52 We accordingly grant enforcement of this part of the order of the Board. A far more difficult and serious question is presented by the finding......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp., Laundry Drivers and Helpers Local No. 88, No. 88
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 26, 1960
    ...of union withdrawal letters (Texarkana Bus Co. v. N. L. R. B., 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 480, 483; N. L. R. B. v. United Biscuit Co., 8 Cir., 208 F.2d 52, 55, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 934, 74 S.Ct. 629, 98 L.Ed. 1085); unequal advantages conferred upon the inside union that are denied to the outsi......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Solo Cup Company, No. 15524.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 16, 1956
    ...Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 567, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 981, 75 S.Ct. 572, 99 L.Ed. 764. In N. L. R. B. v. United Biscuit Co., 8 Cir., 1953, 208 F.2d 52, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 934, 74 S.Ct. 629, 98 L.Ed. 1085, this 237 F.2d 523 court stated the rule, 208 F.2d at page "In this proceed......
  • Lion Oil Company v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 15158.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 5, 1957
    ...by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole shall be conclusive." In N. L. R. B. v. United Biscuit Co., 8 Cir., 1953, 208 F.2d 52, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 934, 74 S.Ct. 629, 98 L.Ed. 1085, this court stated the rule, 208 F.2d at page "In this proceeding we are n......
  • NLRB v. Elias Brothers Big Boy, Inc., No. 15298.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • February 12, 1964
    ...et al., 325 F.2d 360 (C.A.6), supra; N. L. R. B. v. Flemingsburg Mfg. Co., 300 F.2d 182 (C.A.6); N. L. R. B. v. United Biscuit Co. etc., 208 F.2d 52 We accordingly grant enforcement of this part of the order of the Board. A far more difficult and serious question is presented by the finding......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT