National Labor Relations Bd. v. Columbian Carbon Co.

• Decision Date: 07 November 1949
• Docket Number: No. 3884.,3884.
• Citation: 177 F.2d 1003
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. COLUMBIAN CARBON CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

177 F.2d 1003 (1949)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. COLUMBIAN CARBON CO.

No. 3884.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

November 7, 1949.

Robert Fousek, Kansas City, Mo. (David P. Findling, A. Norman Somers, Owsley Vose and Joseph I. Nachman, Washington, D. C., were with him on the brief), for petitioner.

James C. Sanders, Amarillo, Tex. (Morgan, Culton, Morgan & Britain, Amarillo, Tex., were with him on the brief), for respondent.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is the conventional proceeding in which the National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order requiring respondent, Columbian Carbon Company, to cease and desist from discouraging membership in International Union of Operating Engineers, A. F. of L., or other labor organizations, of its employees, or in any other manner interfering, etc. with its employees in the exercise of their right to self organization and to take affirmative action (a) by offering Lee Roy Barker immediate reinstatement without prejudice to his rights; (b) to make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by virtue of his unlawful discharge; and (c) post appropriate notices. The application is brought under the applicable provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S. C.A. § 160(e).

The Board made findings of fact finding violations of employees' rights by respondent. The controversy arose out of an organization proceeding in which Lee Roy Barker participated in an effort to unionize respondent's employees. Barker was discharged while the unionization movement was on. It was charged and found by the Board that he was wrongfully discharged because of his unionization activities and that in other ways respondent sought to intimidate its employees in the exercise of their rights, under the Act, by threats of reprisals and various forms of punishment.

The evidence, as in all such cases, was in sharp conflict. Our only function is to search the record to determine whether the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Since the legal principles which control the decisions in such cases as this are well established, no contribution to the law in general would result in setting out the evidence in detail, nor would any useful purpose be served in this case by narrating the evidence which we think supports the Board's findings. This would only result in further burdening the already overburdened legal publications with material of no lasting value. It is sufficient to say that we have carefully examined the entire record and have reached the conclusion that the findings of the Board are sustained thereby and that the order should be enforced.

Respondent complains of the action of the Board in rejecting two letters written by Bond and Milton, respectively,¹ giving their reason for Barker's discharge after they had been received by the examiner. Respondent offered testimony that it was its custom to require written reports from its supervisory employees when an employee was discharged. It is contended that these two letters were admissible as reports made pursuant to such requirements. We do not think the Board erred in refusing to receive these two letters. It seems clear that these letters or records were not made in the usual, ordinary course of business. The entries, if such they may be termed, were not made at the time of the discharge. They were not made until six days thereafter. They indicate that they were made in response to an inquiry. Thus, Bond's letter begins, as follows:

"This is in regards to Mr. Lee R. Barker who was employed by the Columbian Carbon Company. He was discharged May 10, 1946 because of being fussy and overbearing with his fellow man and his immediate supervisors."

Milton's letter, after stating the reasons for the discharge concludes by saying:

"Hoping that this will help clarify matters, I am

"Respectfully yours, * * *."

It is worthy of note that the letters were addressed to the Supervisor at "Post Office Box 291, Ulysses,...