National Labor Relations Board v. Rath Packing Co.

• Decision Date: 28 November 1941
• Docket Number: No. 481,481
• Citation: 123 F.2d 684
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. RATH PACKING CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

123 F.2d 684 (1941)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. RATH PACKING CO.

No. 481, Original.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

November 28, 1941.

Leslie Clifford, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D. C., (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Malcolm F. Halliday, Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Gerhard P. Van Arkel and William F. Guffey, Jr., Attys., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief; Frank A. Mouritsen, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D. C., on the petition), for petitioner.

B. F. Swisher, of Waterloo, Iowa (Swisher, Cohrt & Gillilland, of Waterloo, Iowa, on the brief), for respondent.

Before SANBORN, THOMAS, and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

The National Labor Relations Board, by a petition, with supporting affidavits, filed August 25, 1941, has charged the respondent and certain of its officers with having violated the decree of this Court entered in this case on October 31, 1940. 8 Cir., 115 F.2d 217. That decree directed the enforcement of an order of the Board entered August 18, 1939, which, among other things, required the respondent to cease and desist from dominating and interfering with the administration of the Employees Representative Council of Plant Employees of the Rath Packing Company (hereinafter called the Council) or the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing support to the Council or to any other labor organization of the respondent's employees. In its petition the Board asks that the respondent and its officers be required to show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt, and that they be adjudged in contempt, for having disobeyed the decree on the ground that, since the decree was entered, the respondent has dominated and supported a labor organization of its employees known as Independent Packinghouse Workers' Association (hereinafter called Independent). The Board asks that the respondent and its officers be required to comply with the decree and to withdraw recognition from and to disestablish Independent as the representative of the respondent's employees, and to notify them that it has taken such action as this Court may require. The Board also asks that it be awarded costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and that this Court take such further action and grant such other relief as may be just and proper.

Upon the petition of the Board, this Court issued its order directing the respondent and its officers to file their answer to the petition, and to show cause on October 11, 1941, why they should not be adjudged guilty of contempt. They filed an answer, together with supporting affidavits, denying that they had violated the decree of this Court, and asserting that they had not dominated or supported the administration of Independent, and that Independent was not the same organization as the Council, which had been disestablished, and was not an outgrowth of the Council. In their answer, the respondent and its officers asked that the Board's petition be dismissed. Upon the return day of the order to show cause, the parties appeared and presented oral arguments. Briefs were also submitted.

The Board contends that its verified petition and the supporting affidavits so clearly show that Independent is the same organization as the Council or that it is an outgrowth of the Council, and that Independent was formed and administered with the assistance of the supervisory employees of the respondent and has been favored with the respondent's...