National Labor Relations Board v. Express Pub. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 9408.,9408. |
| Citation | 111 F.2d 588 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. EXPRESS PUB. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Mortimer B. Wolf, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Leroy G. Denman and Leroy G. Denman, Jr., both of San Antonio, Tex., for respondent.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
The respondent, a Texas corporation engaged at San Antonio in the publication of the Morning Express and the Evening News, was found guilty of unfair labor practices by petitioner, and ordered to cease and desist therefrom, as well as to take certain affirmative action which the petitioner found would effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, the order being issued pursuant to Section 10(c), and the jurisdiction of this court being based upon Section 10(e) of the act. 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.
The Board found that respondent had refused to bargain collectively with the San Antonio Newspaper Guild, a labor organization, contrary to Section 8(1) and (5) of the act, and that respondent, by reading a certain statement to its employees, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the act, contrary to Section 8(1) of the act. In addition to requiring respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, the Board ordered it to bargain collectively with the Guild, and, if an understanding were reached, to embody it, upon request, in a signed agreement, and to post appropriate notices. The respondent does not object to putting into the form of a signed agreement any understanding which may be reached with the Guild, but denies that there is any evidence in the record to support the findings of the Board.
An analysis of the evidence, and even the argument of counsel for the Board, reduces the question of a refusal to bargain collectively with the Guild to the good faith of the respondent in conducting the negotiations. The facts appear partly in written negotiations, and partly in stenographic reports of the meetings at which the negotiations were had, all of which are stipulated. The Guild's representatives were promptly recognized by the employer, and negotiations conducted at great length. In March, 1938, the Guild asked for a meeting to bargain. A date was agreed upon, the meeting held, and the bargaining commenced.
The Guild submitted a contract with many provisions. The employer read a statement outlining its position. It expressed a willingness to exchange viewpoints with the Guild, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Relations Bd. v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co.
...Cir., 1938, 94 F.2d 862, 872 certiorari denied, 1938, 304 U.S. 576, 58 S.Ct. 1046, 82 L.Ed. 1540; cf, National Labor Relations Board v. Express Publishing Co., 5 Cir., 1940, 111 F.2d 588, decree modified, 61 S.Ct. 693, 85 L.Ed. ___, decided March 3, The refusal of the respondent to negotiat......
-
Wilson & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
...569, 84 L.Ed. 799; National Labor Relations Board v. Griswold Mfg. Co., 3 Cir., 106 F.2d 713, 719, 720; National Labor Relations Board v. Express Pub. Co., 5 Cir., 111 F.2d 588, 589; National Labor Relations Board v. Somerset Shoe Co., 1 Cir., 111 F.2d 681, 688; Continental Oil Co. v. Natio......
-
National Labor Rel. Board v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
...to the unions at any time during the course of the negotiations. Wards was not bound to offer a counterproposal (N.L.R.B. v. Express Pub. Co., 5 Cir., 111 F.2d 588, 589), but when one is asked for, it ought to be made, although not indispensable (Globe Cotton Mills v. N.L.R.B., 5 Cir., 103 ......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Express Pub Co
...comply with the order as modified and to notify a specified agent of the Board what steps respondent had taken to comply with the order. 111 F.2d 588. We granted certiorari November 12, 1940, 311 U.S. 638, 61 S.Ct. 134, 85 L.Ed. —-, the ques- tions raised being of importance in the administ......