National Labor Relations Board v. Clark, No. 9888.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtMARIS, GOODRICH and KALODNER, Circuit
Citation176 F.2d 341
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CLARK et al.
Decision Date17 August 1949
Docket NumberNo. 9888.

176 F.2d 341 (1949)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
v.
CLARK et al.

No. 9888.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued April 7, 1949.

Decided August 17, 1949.


Irving Herman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. (David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Assistant General Counsel, Owsley Vose, Rosanna A. Blake, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Joseph J. Corn, Newark, N. J., for respondents.

Before MARIS, GOODRICH and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

176 F.2d 342

KALODNER, Circuit Judge.

In this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order against the respondents, George H. and Mildred H. Clark, copartners trading as Clark Phonograph Record Co., requiring them to desist from activities found by the Board to be unfair labor practices. 78 N.L. R.B. 34. The respondents' defense consists of an attack on (1) the adequacy of the evidence to support the findings of the Board, (2) the authority of the Board to issue the order, and (3) the propriety, in a number of respects, of the order itself.

On May 10, 1946, the respondents entered into an exclusive bargaining agreement with the Clark Employees Association (hereinafter referred to as "Association"), an unaffiliated labor organization. On January 14, 1947, the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO (hereinafter referred to as "Union"), filed against the respondents charges of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(1) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 452, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(1) and (2). Complaint was issued by the Board the same day. Hearings were held and an intermediate report was filed by the trial examiner on June 19, 1947, finding that the respondents had committed the violations alleged, and on June 30, 1948, the Board rendered its decision and order, substantially adopting the intermediate report.

The Board found: the respondent George Clark had threatened to close the plant when Union claimed majority representation and requested recognition; the respondents' supervisors took an active part in organizing the Association; their attorney drafted the certificate of incorporation for the Association and paid the incorporation fees; their bookkeeper used respondents' petty cash for the payment of the Association's bills; they post-haste recognized the Association as the exclusive bargaining representative, in contrast with the requirement that Union prove its claim to majority representation; they granted a pay increase and a bonus under circumstances which indicated to the employees that these benefits were obtained through the efforts of the Association; they granted authority to the Association to administer the bonus plan; and finally, they permitted the Association to solicit membership, during working hours, to post notices on the respondents' bulletin boards, and to use the respondents' supplies, telephone, and transportation facilities.

Upon these findings of fact, the Board concluded that the respondents had encroached upon the prohibition of Section 8(1) and (2) of the 1935 Act. We have carefully considered the whole record, and find substantial evidence to support these findings, and the conclusions of law dependent thereon. The content of the proscription of this section is, we believe, so firmly ingrained in our law that it is sufficient to say, without the necessity of citing the plethora of supporting authorities, that the activities of the respondents as described above amount to clear infringement of the statutory right to organize freely. It need only be said, in addition, that the unfair labor practices found to have existed continue within the ban of the Act as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 136, 140, Section 8(a) (1)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp., Laundry Drivers and Helpers Local No. 88, No. 88
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 26, 1960
    ...hasty recognition of the inside union, as contrasted with marked reluctance to recognize the outside union (N. L. R. B. v. Clark, 3 Cir., 176 F.2d 341, 342). Moreover, when an inside union is formed behind picket lines close scrutiny of its genesis is required. N. L. R. B. v. Brown Paper Mi......
  • Johnson, In re, No. 38515
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 15, 1967
    ...Co., 312 U.S. 426, 85 L.Ed. 930, 61 S.Ct. 693 (1941); NLRB v. American Laundry Mach. Co., 152 F.2d 400 (2d Cir. 1945); NLRB v. Clark, 176 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. Also somewhat analogous is the requirement of reporting income for income tax purposes. In the case of United States v. Sullivan, 274 U......
  • NLRB v. Flemingsburg Manufacturing Co., No. 14668.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • March 21, 1962
    ...find no impropriety in the identification by name of the AFL-CIO Union in the notice required to be posted. N. L. R. B. v. Clark, et al., 176 F.2d 341, 344 (CA 3, Enforcement of the Board's order is decreed. ...
  • National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, No. 3932.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • March 15, 1950
    ...application. National Labor Relations Board v. Mylan-Sparta Co., 6 Cir., 166 F.2d 485; National Labor Relations Board v. Clark, 3 Cir., 176 F.2d 341. The company urges that evidence showing that Trujillo was a member of the Communist Party was admissible for the purpose of affecting his cre......
4 cases
  • Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp., Laundry Drivers and Helpers Local No. 88, No. 88
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 26, 1960
    ...hasty recognition of the inside union, as contrasted with marked reluctance to recognize the outside union (N. L. R. B. v. Clark, 3 Cir., 176 F.2d 341, 342). Moreover, when an inside union is formed behind picket lines close scrutiny of its genesis is required. N. L. R. B. v. Brown Paper Mi......
  • Johnson, In re, No. 38515
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 15, 1967
    ...Co., 312 U.S. 426, 85 L.Ed. 930, 61 S.Ct. 693 (1941); NLRB v. American Laundry Mach. Co., 152 F.2d 400 (2d Cir. 1945); NLRB v. Clark, 176 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. Also somewhat analogous is the requirement of reporting income for income tax purposes. In the case of United States v. Sullivan, 274 U......
  • NLRB v. Flemingsburg Manufacturing Co., No. 14668.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • March 21, 1962
    ...find no impropriety in the identification by name of the AFL-CIO Union in the notice required to be posted. N. L. R. B. v. Clark, et al., 176 F.2d 341, 344 (CA 3, Enforcement of the Board's order is decreed. ...
  • National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, No. 3932.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • March 15, 1950
    ...application. National Labor Relations Board v. Mylan-Sparta Co., 6 Cir., 166 F.2d 485; National Labor Relations Board v. Clark, 3 Cir., 176 F.2d 341. The company urges that evidence showing that Trujillo was a member of the Communist Party was admissible for the purpose of affecting his cre......

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