National Labor Relations Bd. v. Poinsett Lbr. & Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 6921.,6921. |
| Citation | 221 F.2d 121 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. POINSETT LUMBER & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Irving M. Herman, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, New York City (David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel; Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Elizabeth W. Weston, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on brief), for petitioner.
Arthur E. Pettit, New York City, and C. F. Haynsworth, Jr., Greenville, S. C. (Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, New York City, and Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Greenville, S. C., on brief), for respondent.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
This is a petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board finding the Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing Company guilty of unfair labor practices based upon a finding of refusal to bargain and one instance of an alleged threat made to a union employee because of union membership. The refusal to bargain is admitted, but the company claims that the union certified as bargaining agent does not represent a majority of employees in the bargaining unit. An election was conducted under the supervision of the Board but the union received a majority of only a very few votes and the company contends that the result was achieved as the result of threats and pressure exerted on behalf of the union. The company duly filed objections to the election, raising substantial questions as to threats and intimidation and asking a hearing with regard thereto. Instead of ordering a hearing, the Board, acting upon the report of investigation by its Regional Director, certified the union as bargaining representative notwithstanding the exceptions of the company thereto and its request for a hearing again made. On the hearing in the unfair labor practice proceeding, the company offered evidence of the threats and coercion upon which it relied, but this was excluded by the trial examiner.
The rules and regulations of the National Labor Relations Board clearly contemplate that a hearing shall be granted when substantial questions are raised as to the validity of an election. Section 102.61 of the regulations provides, in part:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Bata Shoe Company
...v. Joclin Mfg. Co., 314 F.2d 627 (2d Cir. 1963); NLRB v. The Lord Baltimore Press, 300 F.2d 671 (4th Cir. 1962); NLRB v. Poinsett Lumber Mfg. Co., 221 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1955); NLRB v. West Texas Utilities Co., 214 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1954); NLRB Rules & Regs. § 102.69, 29 C.F.R. § 102.69. T......
-
NLRB v. Sun Drug Co.
...do not accept as accurate guides the indications in N. L. R. B. v. Sidran, 181 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1950) and N. L. R. B. v. Poinsett Lumber & Mfg. Co., 221 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1955) that a hearing is required even where there has not been shown a substantial and material disputed issue of Her......
-
Barrus Construction Company v. NLRB
...377 F.2d 821, 826, 827 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 917, 88 S.Ct. 238, 19 L.Ed.2d 265 (1967). Accord, NLRB v. Poinsett Lumber & Mfg. Co., 221 F.2d 121, 123 (4th Cir. 1955) ("right to produce evidence or conduct cross-examination material to the The company argues that consolidation w......
-
NLRB v. Union Brothers, Inc.
...and corrected in enforcement proceedings. United States Rubber Co. v. NLRB, 373 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1967), NLRB v. Poinsett Lumber & Mfg. Co., 221 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1955). 6 Section 102.69(c) 29 C.F.R. § 102.69 (c). 7 Sections 102.69(e), 102.64, 102.65, and 102.66 29 C.F.R. §§ 102.69(e), 10......