National Labor Relations Board v. American Mfg. Co., 8964.
| Decision Date | 12 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 8964.,8964. |
| Citation | 132 F.2d 740 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. AMERICAN MFG. CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Associate Gen. Counsel, Gerhard P. Van Arkel, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and A. Norman Somers, all of Washington D. C., and L. N. D. Wells, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo., Attys., National Labor Relations Board, for petitioner.
Richard U. Simon, of Fort Worth, Tex., for respondents.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
The petition alleges that in disobedience of an order and decree of this court of date December 9, 1938, entered by consent, ordering respondents to cease and desist from unfair labor practices,1 respondents have, for the purpose and with the effect of interfering with, restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, disobeyed, resisted and disregarded Sec. 1 (c) of the decree in several particulars. These are: (1) that on or about June 1, 1942, a few hours after agents of the I. A. of M. had circulated outside the company's gates notices announcing a union membership campaign, the respondents caused to be attached to the timecard of each employee the notice set out in the margin;2 (2) that thereafter while carefully refraining from correcting the interference, restraint and coercion resulting from the distribution of the aforesaid notice, respondents put up or posted another notice3 on the bulletin board, which, while pretending to avoid the consequences of the first notice was a reemphasis of its coercive influence; (3) that on about June 15, 1942, it posted a notice on the board to the effect; that union officials were attempting to mislead the employees in regard to a refund paid under the terms of this court's decree; that as a matter of fact more would have been received if the employee had continued working for the respondents instead of listening to the Union officials, and the notice further stated that it was unnecessary to belong to a union to work for respondents and unnecessary to pay $50.00 for the privilege of working "until another $50.00 sucker comes along", and there were derogatory references to union organizers as racketeers. There were other charges, but since they are denied by respondents and the matter was submitted on bill and answer, it is unnecessary to set them out. There was a prayer for, a show cause order, a judgment holding respondents in contempt, and for the imposition of conditions, including a fine, for purging them of contempt. The respondents answering the petition, denied that they had intended to act, or had acted, in contempt of this court's decree. Admitting the posting of the three notices as charged in the petition, but denying that they had been posted with the intention or with the effect of violating this court's decree, they denied the other charges of the petition. As to the admitted matters, they defended on the grounds (1) that the acts complained of had no connection with, and no relation or similarity to, the acts and practices which brought about the former decree and which that decree sought to remedy, and (2) that if they had, they did not interfere with, restrain or coerce respondent company's employees in the exercise of their right of self-organization, and were, therefore, not contemptuous. We cannot agree with either of these positions. The first, that the scope of the decree, consented to by them, and long since become final, may now be limited short of its terms, is wholly without merit, for a decree entered with jurisdiction must be obeyed as entered. It may not be defied or disobeyed. Its terms are clear and comprehensive and if they read more broadly than respondent intended that they should, the time and manner of avoiding that breadth was by objections to the decree before its entry and not by disobedience of it afterwards. Their second point that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Telephone Co. v. Communications Wkrs. of Amer.
...that breadth was by objections to the decree before its entry and not by disobedience of it afterwards." NLRB v. American Manufacturing Co., 132 F.2d 740, 742 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 743, 63 S.Ct. 1030, 87 L.Ed. 1700 "Familiar equity procedure assures opportunity for modifying or......
-
State v. New York Movers Tariff Bureau, Inc.
...the decree was not investigated or adjudicated at the original trial.' (citations omitted) The same court, in National Labor Relations Board v. American Mfg. Co., 132 F.2d 740, considered the point of the relation between the acts enjoined by a consent decree and the acts complained of in t......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc.
...terms of our 1972 order, Reed & Prince is therefore of no help to them. The controlling precedent on this point is NLRB v. American Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 1943, 132 F.2d 740. In that case, the respondent contended that the conduct alleged to be contumacious bore no connection with, and no relati......
-
Cagle's, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...the questioning tends to be coercive. N. L. R. B. v. Pope Maintenance Corp., 573 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978); N. L. R. B. v. American Manufacturing Co., 132 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1943). Although the campaign of Addison and Osteen had not yet surfaced, the company's lengthy resistance at the barga......