National Labor Relations Board v. Dixie Ohio Express Company, 18486.

Citation409 F.2d 10
Decision Date10 April 1969
Docket NumberNo. 18486.,18486.
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. DIXIE OHIO EXPRESS COMPANY, Respondent.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

Nancy Sherman, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Lawrence M. Joseph, Richard Adelman, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on brief.

William F. Ford, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent; Fisher & Phillips, Atlanta, Ga., on briefs.

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order of September 26, 1967, whereby it found respondent Dixie Ohio Express Company guilty of unfair labor practices. Its decision and order and its trial examiner's decision which was reversed by the Board are reported as Dixie Ohio Express Company, 167 NLRB No. 72. We deny enforcement.

Dixie operated a freight terminal in Nashville, Tennessee, which employed 44 members of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers, Local Union 327. On or about July 30, 1965, the company advised the union that it intended to streamline the procedure of loading and unloading merchandise at its terminal which would result in some layoffs. On August 17 this change was implemented, and 15 of the 44 employees were given layoff notices. The union's complaint appears to have been that the company failed to negotiate with it over the planned revision of its loading and unloading operation, claiming in its charge to the NLRB that such failure violated § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (5) and (1). The union did not charge that the fulfillment of the company's plan violated either the company-union contract or the National Labor Relations Act. On September 2, 1965, the union agreed to the implementation of the plan. The trial examiner found no violation and recommended that the Board dismiss the complaint. The Board, Member Jenkins dissenting, found violations of § 8(a) (5) and (1) and ordered the company to make whole the laid-off employees for any loss of earnings from August 17 to September 2, 1965.

It is the conclusion of the panel to deny enforcement of the Board's order. The company's actions constituted merely a change in ordinary day-to-day operating procedures, and cannot be characterized as directly involving "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment" which are mandatory bargaining subjects under §§ 8(a) (5) and (8) (d) of the Act.

Petitioner relies on Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 85 S.Ct. 398, 13 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964), but we do not read that case as requiring a company to bargain collectively regarding the type of conduct involved herein. Mr. Justice Stewart in his concurrence in Fibreboard stated that, "The Court most assuredly does not decide that every managerial decision which necessarily terminates an individual's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Local 777, Democratic Union Organizing Committee, Seafarers Intern. Union of North America, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 20, 1979
    ......v. . NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. . YELLOW CAB OMPANY and Checker Taxi Company, Inc., Petitioners, . v. . NATIONAL LABOR ... "independent contractors" by virtue of an express statutory provision: "The term 'employee' . . . ...82, 19 L.Ed.2d 122 (1967); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. NLRB, 361 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. ...v. Dixie Ohio Express Co., 409 F.2d 10 (6th Cir. 1969); Compare ......
  • Brockway Motor Trucks, Div. of Mack Trucks, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 77-1974
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • July 19, 1978
    ...(1st Cir. 1972) (no mandatory bargaining over a merger which is at the core of "entrepreneurial control"); NLRB v. Dixie Ohio Express Co., 409 F.2d 10, 11 (6th Cir. 1969) (per curiam) (streamlining of operation entailing partial termination of plant operations, held non-mandatory); NLRB v. ......
  • Van Buren Public School Dist. v. Wayne County Circuit Judge, AFL-CI
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • May 27, 1975
    ...422 (1972), National Labor Relations Board v. Royal Plating & Polishing Co., 350 F.2d 191 (C.A. 3, 1965), National Relations Board v. Dixie Ohio Express Co., 409 F.2d 10 (C.A. 6, 1969).20 See, e.g., National Labor Relations Board v. Jackson Farmers, Inc., 457 F.2d 516 (C.A. 10, 1972), Natio......
  • International U., United Auto. A. & A. Imp. Wkrs. v. NLRB
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • October 17, 1972
    ...in joint venture; N. L. R. B. v. Royal Plating & Polishing Co., supra one of two plants closed down; see also N. L. R. B. v. Dixie Ohio Express Co., 409 F. 2d 10 (6 Cir. 1969) procedures for loading and unloading substantially altered; N. L. R. B. v. Adams Dairy, Inc., 322 F.2d 553 (8 Cir. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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