National Labor Relations Board v. SOUTHPORT P. CO.

Decision Date01 February 1941
Docket NumberNo. 9517.,9517.
Citation117 F.2d 90
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. SOUTHPORT PETROLEUM CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, and Walter B. Wilbur, both of Washington, D. C., for National Labor Relations Board.

F. W. Fischer, of Tyler, Tex., and Harry Dow, of Houston, Tex., for respondent.

Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to hearings had upon complaints filed by the Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 227, against the Southport Petroleum Company, the National Labor Relations Board found that the company was engaging in certain unfair labor practices. Accordingly, the Board ordered the company to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action.1 The order is before us on a petition to enforce, requiring us to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence.

The entire order is based upon the findings of the Board that Cornish, Richey, and Gooch were discharged because of union activities, and that, because of the discharges, the employees were interfered with and restrained in the exercise of their rights to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. We shall briefly summarize the evidence relating to the discharge of each, which evidence, in our opinion, adequately supports the findings made by the Board and the order entered thereon.

William Cornish was employed by the Southport Company on June 24, 1935. He was an electrician, and performed his work so well that he was repeatedly praised by his superiors and repeatedly raised in pay. He was one of the first to join the union, and became active in its efforts to organize the employees. He was elected vice-president of the union, was named acting secretary of the Texas City branch, was a member of the Workmen's Committee, and chairman of the Organizing Committee. As a member of the Workmen's Committee, Cornish appeared before Lee LaFerney, the manager of the company, more than once in efforts to arrange a conference between the union and the management. He was discharged on Wednesday, August 4, 1937, when he appeared for work at 9:30, two-and-one-half hours after he was scheduled to begin work; he was delayed because of an appointment with his dentist that morning. Cornish failed to notify the management that he would be delayed, contenting himself with notifying his assistant. He testified that his presence was not imperative; that his assistant was capable of performing the routine duties; that he regularly took off one day a week, which day varied with the demands of his work, and of which he was required to give no notice to the management; that the occasion of his discharge was the only time he had been late during his entire employment with the company. On August 2, 1937, the company told an applicant for a job as electrician that they were contemplating making a change, and that he could expect employment soon.

E. D. Richey was discharged by his brother-in-law, a foreman in the plant, allegedly for repeatedly appearing for work in a drunken condition. The foreman testified that he had carried Richey home from work on several occasions in a drunken condition, and that he was too intoxicated properly to do his work on the day of his discharge. Richey denied that he was, or had ever been, drunk or drinking while performing his duties. Fellow workmen testified that they had never seen Richey drinking or drunk while working, and that, in their opinion, his work was satisfactory. The foreman acknowledged that, on each of the occasions when Richey was drunk, he had assigned work to him. This work was of a nature that, if carelessly performed, might result in serious damage. Less than a month before his discharge, Richey was given the office of Steward in the union, and collected the dues of the members.

Earl Gooch was employed by the company for four-and-one-half years as a welder. He joined the union, was active in soliciting membership in it, was elected acting secretary, and served on the Organizing Committee. On August 4, 1937, which was the date on which Cornish was discharged, Gooch's employment was terminated, under the guise of a transfer, when he was sent to do welding work for an independent contractor engaged in construction work at a branch plant belonging to respondent. After that work was completed, Gooch was informed that he was no longer employed by the Southport Petroleum...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Southport Petroleum Co v. National v. National Labor Relations Board
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1942
    ...that it be enforced, thus in effect denying the motion to dismiss and the application for leave to adduce additional evidence. 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 90. We granted certiorari limited to the question of the propriety of the denial of the latter because of the general importance of the question. 3......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. West Texas U. Co., 9770.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 31, 1941
    ...Co. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 83. 4 N. L. R. B. v. Texas Mining & Smelting Co., 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 86; N. L. R. B. v. Southport Petroleum Co., 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 90. 5 Solvay Process Co. v. N. L. R. B., supra; N. L. R. B. v. Texas Mining & Smelting Co., supra. 6 N. L. R. B. v. Texas Mini......
  • National Labor Relations Bd. v. Texas Mining & S. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 1, 1941
    ...117 F.2d 86 (1941) ... NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ... TEXAS MINING & SMELTING CO ... Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit ... January 4, 1941 ... Rehearing Denied February 1, 1941.117 F.2d ... ...
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Caroline Mills, Inc., 12179.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 18, 1948
    ...to questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole shall be conclusive." 2 N. L. R. B. v. Southport Pet. Co., 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 90, affirmed Southport Pet. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 315 U.S. 100, 62 S.Ct. 452, 86 L.Ed. 3 N. L. R. B. v. Athens Mfg. Co., 5 ......

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