NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. Lovvorn
| Decision Date | 11 February 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 12367.,12367. |
| Citation | 172 F.2d 293 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. LOVVORN. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Ruth Weyand, Acting Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, and Abraham H. Maller, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Murphey Candler, Jr. and John Wesley Weekes, both of Decatur, Ga, for respondent.
Before HUTCHESON, WALLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
The Board proceeding resulting in the order sought to be enforced involved a small cotton mill, which was located in Forsythe, Georgia, and employed approximately eighty-seven persons. It grew out of the efforts of Textile Workers Union of America C.I.O. to organize the plant, represent the workers therein as exclusive bargaining agent, and to obtain a closed shop agreement.
It was tried on a complaint filed December 4, 1946, charging Lovvorn, sole owner of the Georgia Twine & Cordage Co., with unfair labor practices. The specific charges were: (1) That on or about July 22, 1946, the union, being then and there the representative of a majority of the employees, did request respondent to bargain collectively with it as exclusive representative of the employees, and the request was refused; (2) that at all times since he has refused to so bargain; (3) that on July 22, he closed the plant and locked out all employees in order to discourage membership in the union, and (4) since that date, by surveillance and other prohibitive acts, he has interfered with and prevented the self-organization of his employees and the exercise of their guaranteed rights.
There was an intermediate report finding respondent guilty of unfair practices, including the lock-out, substantially as charged. The Board, finding that the shutdown was for repairs and not a lock-out, disapproved the finding and dismissed the charge that it was.
The Board, however, found: that the union did on July 22, as claimed, attain majority status; that the respondent did then and thereafter unlawfully refuse to bargain with it; and that he had gone about to undermine the union by granting a general wage increase and by abetting and aiding in the circulation of a petition opposing the union and withdrawing from membership in it.
Though, then, it was established by undisputed evidence that a majority of the employees, fifty-eight out of eighty-seven, had signed and delivered to respondent a petition headed "We, the undersigned employees, are opposed to a closed shop and are opposed to union membership", and that by August 5th the Union had lost its majority position, the Board ordered respondent to bargain with it. It did this because it found that respondent, having by his action undermined the union, ought not to be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong, and it is here seeking, as it has successfully done in many similar cases, enforcement of its order.
Respondent, opposing enforcement, insists that the evidence does not support the Board's findings, that the union was the real choice of the majority of the employees, and that respondent, knowing it was the chosen representative, refused to bargain with it. It insists that, on the contrary, the evidence shows merely that the union put on a "whirlwind campaign" of procuring signatures, that having in two or three days procured what it declared was a majority, it then demanded recognition and bargaining, and, before the employer could determine the correctness of the claim, the employees, of their own accord, had evidenced their opposition to having the union represent them.
Respondent, therefore, insists that if the employer had thereafter recognized the union as the bargaining representative, he would have done violence to the very right of self-organization which the invoked statute guaranteed to employees.
Upon the finding that the initiation and circulation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Flomatic Corporation
...did not represent the thoughtful and deliberate action of the employees but were the results of a rash act * * *." N. L. R. B. v. Lovvorn, 172 F.2d 293, 295 (5th Cir. 1949). Such card majorities must by necessity be deemed evidence of the status quo ante where the employer's conduct has bee......
-
NLRB v. Birmingham Publishing Company
...reprisal or promises of economic benefit. N. L. R. B. v. Poultry Enterprises, Inc., 5 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 522, 524; N. L. R. B. v. Lovvorn, 5 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 293, 294. Looking at the record as a whole, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the ......
-
National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Charles R. Krimm Lumber Co.
...Consolidated Machine Tool Corp., 2 Cir., 163 F.2d 376, 378, certiorari denied 332 U.S. 824, 68 S.Ct. 164, 92 L.Ed. 399; N. L. R. B. v. Lovvorn, 5 Cir., 172 F.2d 293, 294. It is contended that the Board's finding that there was a refusal to bargain collectively in good faith in violation of ......
-
National Labor Relations Bd. v. Parma Water Lifter Co., 13770.
...N. L. R. B. v. W. T. Grant Co., 9 Cir., 199 F.2d 711, 712. Supporting petition withdrawing from membership in union: N. L. R. B. v. Lovvorn, 5 Cir., 172 F.2d 293, 294. ...