National Labor Relations Bd. v. Pyne Molding Corp.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 84,Docket 23635.,84 |
| Citation | 226 F.2d 818 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. PYNE MOLDING CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Provost, Asst. Gen. Counsel and Arnold Ordman and James A. Ryan, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Morgan P. Ames, Stamford, Conn., for respondent.W. H. F. Millar, Waynesville, N. C., of counsel.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges.
This petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board raises the question whether on the record as a whole there is substantial evidence to support the order, taking into consideration that the Board in finding against the Company overruled its Trial Examiner who had recommended dismissal of all three of the charges as to which enforcement is now sought.There is no question as to the Board's jurisdiction.
The Board found that the Pyne Molding Corporation had interfered with and coerced the production and maintenance employees at its New Milford, Connecticut plant in their rights of self-organization in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act,29 U.S. C.A. § 158(a)(1); that employee Robert Essig had been discriminatorily discharged in violation of Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act; and that the Company had refused to bargain collectively with the Union as required by Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act.The Board agreed with the Trial Examiner's recommendation that a complaint of discriminatory discharge of five employees should be dismissed.
From an examination of the record as a whole and giving due weight to the findings and report of the Trial Examiner it is abundantly clear that the findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidence.Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S. Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456.The basic facts are undisputed.The Board disagreed with the Trial Examiner only as to the inferences and conclusions to be drawn from those facts.The Trial Examiner concluded that the Company did not commit the acts complained of for the purpose of undermining the Union and discouraging membership in the Union, but that the Company had other and proper reasons for what it did.In reaching this conclusion he relied largely on the testimony of Robert Salusbury, the Company's manager, as to what his intentions were.The Board, on the other hand, drew contrary inferences from the undisputed facts.Although the Board may not overrule its Trial Examiner by discarding the positive credible testimony of a witness in favor of an inference drawn from tenuous circumstances, N. L. R. B. v. Sheboygan Chair Co., 7 Cir., 1942, 125 F.2d 436, it may refuse to follow its Trial Examiner in crediting testimony where it conflicts with well supported and obvious inferences from the rest of the record.Such refusal is particularly justified where the testimony in question is given by an interested witness and relates to his own motives.From an examination of the entire record we conclude that the Board was fully justified in reaching conclusions contrary to those of its Trial Examiner.
Coercion of the Employees in Violation of Sec. 8(a)(1)
In October 1952 the Company started the manufacture of moldings at its New Milford plant.On November 28, 1952 the Union commenced organizing the Company's production and maintenance employees and by December 9th ten of the thirteen employees had signed membership application cards authorizing the Union to act for them.On December 11th William Fernandes, the Union field representative, wrote the Company that the Union represented a majority of the employees of its production and maintenance departments and requested recognition of the Union and a meeting "at an early date for the purpose of bargaining collectively with respect to their wages, hours and other working conditions."This letter was received by the Company on Saturday, December 13th.
On Monday, December 15th, the Company's manager, Robert Salusbury, called employee Robert Essig into his office and interrogated him as to the reasons for the employees' dissatisfaction with working conditions.Essig responded that the employees wanted an increase in wages and rest periods.According to Essig, Salusbury said to Essig "You know, it wouldn't be any good to have a union over here like they have over at Sandy Hook, conditions are bad over there because the union is in."This was not denied by Salusbury who significantly admitted on cross-examination that he mentioned conditions at Plastic Molding, a company at Sandy Hook, and that it was common knowledge that they had a union contract with the rubber workers' union.Salusbury told Essig he planned to make wage adjustments, set up rest periods, and inaugurate an insurance program and other benefits.Thereafter from December 17th to December 19th all of the other employees were called individually into Salusbury's office for talks similar to that with Essig.Salusbury told them that a wage increase would be granted after the first of the year, that machines for dispensing candy, cigarettes and soda would be installed, that windows would be screened and Venetian blinds would be obtained.On December 18th, the Company attorney, Mr. Miller, wrote the Union stating that the Company refused to recognize it as the collective bargaining agent stating that it was without knowledge as to whether the Union represented a majority of the production and maintenance employees.On Friday, December 19th, Essig was discharged by Salusbury.
Shortly after Salusbury's talks with the employees, the windows were screened and machines for dispensing cigarettes, candy and soda were installed.Pay increases were given to the employees within the next few days.The Company showed that it had applied to the Wage Stabilization Board for these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Local Union No. 948, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, (IBEW), AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B.
...v. NLRB, 649 F.2d 390, 393 (6th Cir.1981); NLRB v. Elias Bros. Big Boy, Inc., 327 F.2d 421, 425 (6th Cir.1964); NLRB v. Pyne Molding Corp., 226 F.2d 818, 819 (2nd Cir.1955).10 NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408, 82 S.Ct. 853, 855, 7 L.Ed.2d 829 (1962) (per curiam). The administrativ......
-
NLRB v. Fitzgerald Mills Corporation
...which he credited." Utica Observer-Dispatch, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 229 F.2d 575, 577 (2 Cir., 1956); see also N. L. R. B. v. Pyne Molding Corp., 226 F.2d 818 (2 Cir., 1955). The Board is justified by the whole record here in drawing such The evidence of the unilateral wage increase, the noti......
-
NLRB v. D'Armigene, Inc.
...Labs., Inc., 298 F.2d 176, 180-181 (2 Cir.), cert. den., 370 U.S. 919, 82 S.Ct. 1555, 8 L.Ed.2d 498 (1962); N. L. R. B. v. Pyne Molding Corp., 226 F.2d 818, 820 (2 Cir. 1955); Indiana Metal Prods. Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 202 F.2d 613, 620 (7 Cir. 1953); Bok, The Regulation of Campaign Tactics......
-
Wilkinson Manufacturing Company v. NLRB, 71-1021
...Co., 441 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1971); NLRB v. Gotham Industries, Inc., 406 F.2d 1306, 1310 (1st Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Pyne Molding Corp., 226 F.2d 818, 820-21 (2d Cir. 1955); Indiana Metal Products Corp. v. NLRB, 202 F.2d 613, 620 (7th Cir. 4 The Company has objected to, and assigned as error, t......