National Labor Relations Board v. Taylor-Colquitt Co.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1943
• Docket Number: No. 5101.,5101.
• Citation: 140 F.2d 92
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. TAYLOR-COLQUITT CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

140 F.2d 92 (1943)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. TAYLOR-COLQUITT CO. et al.

No. 5101.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

November 8, 1943.

Fannie M. Boyls, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D. C. (Robert B. Watts, General Counsel; Ernest A. Gross, Associate Gen. Counsel; Howard Lichtenstein, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Ida Klaus and Dominick L. Manoli, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

C. Erskine Daniel, of Spartanburg, S. Car. (L. W. Perrin, of Spartanburg, S. Car., on the brief), for respondent Taylor-Colquitt Co.

Before SOPER, DOBIE, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.

NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judge.

This is a petition of the National Labor Relations Board to enforce an order against the Taylor-Colquitt Company, a corporation, and Mrs. Elma LaBoone, the respondents.

The Taylor-Colquitt Company is a South Carolina corporation, engaged in the processing of lumber at Spartanburg, in that State.

Toward the end of January 1942, the United Mine Workers of America, District 50, herein called the Union, sought to organize the employees of the respondent company and the effort with one exception was only successful among the negro employees. A number of meetings were held and efforts were made by respondent Mrs. LaBoone, who was the wife of a foreman in charge of the company's lumber yard, and various employees including supervisors and foremen to break up these meetings and interfere with the organization of the Union.

Mrs. LaBoone was especially active in the attempts to break up the meetings and prevent the organization of the Union and was aided in her effort by, among others, one Carl Collins, a supervisory employee assistant to her husband.

On February 26, 1942, the Union filed charges with the Board alleging that the company had engaged in unfair labor practices by the acts of its supervisors and by various evictions and discharges of its employees. After negotiations between the respondent company, the Union, and a representative of the Board, the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated March 26, 1942. This agreement was approved by the Acting Regional Director of the Board on March 28, 1942.

Notwithstanding this settlement agreement the Union alleged that the unfair labor practices continued.

On May 15, after negotiations, an election agreement was approved by the Acting Regional Director providing for an election by secret ballot on May 22 and a list of those employees eligible to vote in the election was agreed upon. The Union charged that the company through its supervisory employees and by encouraging respondent, Mrs. LaBoone, interfered with the election by threats and violence. The election was held but the Board and the Union, because they felt that it had not been fairly conducted, refused to accept whatever result was reached and the ballots were never counted but were deposited in a Spartanburg bank.

The Union then filed an amended charge before the Board against the respondents, hearings were held at Spartanburg, a number of witnesses were examined and the Trial Examiner made his report to the Board, finding against the respondents. The respondents filed exceptions to the Examiner's report and a hearing was had before the Board in Washington, D. C., on October 27, 1942, at which hearing the respondents were represented by counsel who presented argument to the Board.

The Board then made its findings of fact and set out its conclusions of law, sustaining the Trial Examiner, and made the order here sought to be enforced.

It is admitted that the respondent company is engaged in interstate commerce and...