National Labor Relations Bd. v. CHRISTIAN BOARD, ETC.
| Decision Date | 25 July 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 464.,464. |
| Citation | 113 F.2d 678 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CHRISTIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Allen Heald, of Washington, D. C., Atty. for National Labor Relations Board (Charles Fahy, General Counsel, Robert B. Watts, Associate General Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Asst. General Counsel, and Ernest Cook, Atty. for National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Francis M. Curlee, of St. Louis, Mo. (Richard F. Moll, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for respondent.
Before WOODROUGH and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and BELL, District Judge.
Upon a complaint based upon charges filed by the Allied Printing Trades Council of St. Louis, Missouri, a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and hereinafter referred to as the Council, the National Labor Relations Board found that respondent, Christian Board of Publication, has dominated and interfered with the formation of a labor organization of its employees designated as the Employees Committee. 49 Stat. 449, 452, § 8(1, 2), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(1, 2).
The Board petitions for enforcement of its order that respondent (1) cease and desist from: (a) dominating or interfering with the Employees Committee; (b) giving effect to any contract entered into with the Employees Committee; (c) interfering with the employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization; and (2) that the respondent take the following affirmative action: (a) withdraw all recognition of the Employees Committee as the representative of any of its employees for purposes of collective bargaining and completely disestablish the Committee as such representative; (b) post appropriate notices and (c) notify the Regional Director of compliance with the order within ten days of the date of issuance.
The respondent has refused to comply with the order on the grounds (1) that the Board's findings are not sustained by the evidence and (2) that the Board is without jurisdiction to order the disestablishment of the Employees Committee and the voidance of its contract with respondent in view of the fact that the Committee was not made a party in the proceedings before the Board. Jurisdiction of the Board and of this court is conceded other than in the respect heretofore mentioned.
1. The respondent does not attack the accuracy of the particular findings of fact of the Board. The contention is that the inferences and conclusions drawn from these facts are unwarranted, capricious and contrary to the evidence. Summarizing the Board's findings the facts appear as follows.
The respondent, Christian Board of Publication, is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri governing the incorporation of religious, charitable, eleemosynary, fraternal, and other similar organizations organized not for profit. The sole offices and plant are located at St. Louis, Missouri, where it is engaged in the business of printing, publishing and selling religious books and pamphlets. It also publishes some medical books and journals, and does a small amount of job printing. The respondent's products amount in value to approximately $600,000 per year, of which approximately 45 per cent are sold and transported outside the State of Missouri. During normal periods the respondent employs approximately 165 persons, including 112 to 115 production employees, composed chiefly of compositors, mailers, pressmen, feeders and bookbinders. The production employees were found to constitute an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
In February, 1937, a group of pressmen, not individually identified by the evidence, started the circulation of a petition to the respondent, requesting a general increase in the prevailing wage scale to a point within $2 a week of the standard Union wage scale in St. Louis. The request contained in the February petition was denied by respondent but a smaller increase, amounting to five per cent or less, was put into effect. No labor organization was in existence in respondent's plant at that time.
Sometime after May 11, 1937, the Council made its initial effort to organize the respondent's employees and a substantial number of them signed authorization cards designating the Council as their collective bargaining representative. However, as early as April, 1937, the Council had endeavored to negotiate a contract with the respondent providing for a closed shop and the Union wage scale. Between April 13 and June 8, 1937, the Council and the respondent held four unsuccessful conferences, the respondent contending that it could not pay the Union wage scale and could not operate its plants under a closed-shop contract. No agreement was reached, the Council refusing to compromise its demands.
On June 10 and 11, 1937, the respondent with the aid of Price, Waterhouse & Co., certified public accountants, conducted an election among its employees for the purpose of determining their choice of collective bargaining representatives. Just prior to the election the respondent's officers addressed the employees, advising them that it was immaterial to the respondent whom the employees designated as their bargaining agency, and that they should vote as they desired without fear of discrimination. The ballots, which were prepared by the respondent, enabled the employees to vote "For Unions Affiliated with Allied Printing Trades Council", or "For Company Union", or "For Present Method". The results of the election were as follows:
For Unions Affiliated with Allied
Printing Trades Council ......... 62
For Company Union ................ 24
For Present Method ............... 29
Void ............................. 6
___
Total ............................ 121
The respondent made no formal announcement of the results of this election but the outcome soon became known throughout the plant.
Sometime during the week following the election a group of five pressmen constituted themselves a committee under the leadership of one Shull. These men called upon the respondent's plant superintendent and requested a wage increase in accordance with the request contained in the February petition. The plant superintendent told them that he could not bargain with them unless they represented a majority of the employees. Accordingly they circulated, during working hours, a petition referred to as the "Yes and No" petition, which reads as follows: "Will you be satisfied to receive a raise in salary to the extent of $2.00 below the Union scale, said salary to remain within this margin in proportion to the Union scale?"
The "Yes and No" petition was passed from hand to hand among the employees, including foremen and other supervisory employees. There is some evidence, as found by the Board, that certain of the supervisory employees took an active part in circulating the petition and in soliciting support for it. After sixty-eight employees had written the word "Yes" on the petition the committee of five pressmen showed it to the respondent's plant superintendent sometime between June 11 and June 19 and claimed by virtue thereof the right to represent the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. It does not appear from the record whether or not the superintendent recognized their claim at that time.
Thereafter, at the suggestion of Shull, the employees in each department selected a representative to act for them in negotiations with the respondent. This was done informally by conversations among the men, no election being held. On June 19, 1937, the committee of five pressmen, having obtained the superintendent's permission to use the plant assembly room, called a meeting of the employees. This meeting over which Shull presided was attended by about fifty employees including the Employees Committee, the members of which attended as "instructed delegates" of their respective departments. Shull requested the respondent's plant superintendent, its general manager and its office manager to hold themselves in readiness for a conference with the Employees Committee. At the close of the meeting, which lasted five hours, the Employees Committee requested the respondent's officers to come to the assembly room for a conference. Shull handed the "Yes and No" petition to respondent's general manager and stated that they were ready to bargain. The respondent's manager, in the presence of all the employees attending the meeting, informed the Employees Committee that it would be necessary to refer the requested wage increase to the respondent's board of directors but stated that the respondent would recognize the Employees Committee as the exclusive bargaining agency of its employees. He suggested, however, that the "Yes and No" petition be recirculated and signed by the employees.
Accordingly, the employees circulated in each department of the plant separate copies of a petition, herein called the June 19 petition, which stated:
The various copies of the petition were signed by an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. National LR Board
...National Licorice Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 309 U.S. 350, 60 S.Ct. 569, 84 L.Ed. 799; National Labor Relations Board v. Christian Board of Publication, 8 Cir., 113 F.2d 678, 683. Furthermore, it may be noted that in a protracted hearing before the trial examiner, Bethlehem stou......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago
...capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization." 4. See Christian Board of Publication, 13 N.L.R.B. 534, 537 (1939), enf'd, 113 F.2d 678 (CA8 1940); American Medical Assn., 39 N.L.R.B. 385, 386 (1942); Central Dispensary & Emergency Hospital, 44 N.L.R.B. 533, 539 (1942), enf'd, 79 ......
-
Wrist-Rocket Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Saunders
... ... in general through advertising, showings, etc., and was to receive a twenty-five per cent ... ...
-
Western Electric Co. v. NATIONAL LABOR REL. BOARD, ETC.
...B. v. George P. Pilling & Son Co., 3 Cir., 119 F.2d 32; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 115 F.2d 700; N.L.R.B. v. Christian Board of Publication, 8 Cir., 113 F.2d 678. On, or shortly after, April 13, 1937, Hicok, the Company's superintendent of industrial relations, informed Scar......
-
Battle on the Benches: the Wagner Act and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, 1935-1942
...affiliated labor organizations, see NLRB v. Viking Pump Co., 113 F.2d 759 (8th Cir. 1940); NLRB v. Christian Bd. of Publication, 113 F.2d 678 (8th Cir. 1940); Kansas City Power and Light Co. v. NLRB, 111 F.2d 340 (8th Cir. 102. Cupples Co. Mfr. v. NLRB, 106 F.2d 100 (8th Cir. 1939). 103. Id......