NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. Twin Table & Furniture Co.
| Decision Date | 11 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 16969.,16969. |
| Citation | 308 F.2d 686 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. TWIN TABLE & FURNITURE CO., Inc., Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Hans J. Lehmann, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner; Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Rosanna A. Blake, and James A. Ryan, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on the brief.
J. W. Barron, Little Rock, Ark., for respondent.
Before SANBORN and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges, and REGISTER, District Judge.
Unless a controversy between the National Labor Relations Board and an employer as to the enforceability of an order of the Board resulting from conventional proceedings before it, presents some novel or unusual problem, a detailed discussion of the facts and the law is ordinarily profitless. The instant controversy involves the labor relations of the respondent, a recently organized small manufacturer of folding tables, at Conway, Arkansas, having as a work force six employees. During a drive to unionize its plant, conducted by United Furniture Workers of America, AFLCIO, Local No. 395, the respondent discharged an employee named Kitchens, who was active in support of the Union. The Union and the General Counsel of the Board charged that the discharge of Kitchens was the result of his union affiliations and activities. This the respondent denied, claiming that he was discharged because his services were no longer needed or desired. That may well have been true, but, if so, the timing of the discharge was unfortunate, and made the issue, under the evidence taken before the Trial Examiner, one of fact. Both the Examiner and the Board found that the discharge of Kitchens was violative of Section 8(a) (3) and 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (3) and (1). See and compare, National Labor Relations Board v. Des Moines Foods, Inc., 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 285, 289; National Labor Relations Board v. Standard Metal Fabricating Co., 8 Cir., 297 F.2d 365, 366.
The Trial Examiner found that the interrogation of employees about the Union by representatives of the respondent's management was not a violation of Section 8(a) (1) because the interrogation was innocuous and devoid of threats or promises. The Board, with one member dissenting, found otherwise. We think that the evidentiary basis for a finding by the Board that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Hawthorn Company
...Electronics Co., 401 F.2d 297 (8th Cir., 1968); NLRB v. Byrds Mfg. Corp., 324 F.2d 329 (8th Cir. 1963); NLRB v. Twin Table & Furniture Co., 308 F.2d 686 (8th Cir. 1962); NLRB v. Solo Cup Co., 237 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1956); Note, Employer Motivation Under Section 8(a) (3) of the National Labo......
-
NLRB v. Trumbull Asphalt Company of Delaware
...This we think falls short of what is condemned by § 8(a) (1). The situation is governed by our decision in N. L. R. B. v. Twin Table & Furniture Co., 308 F.2d 686 (8 Cir. 1962), the record in which disclosed more specific questioning than that here. See, also, N. L. R. B. v. Montgomery Ward......
-
NLRB v. Century Broadcasting Corporation
...* * This we think falls short of what is condemned by § 8(a) (1). The situation is governed by our decision in N.L.R.B. v. Twin Table & Furniture Co., 308 F.2d 686 (8 Cir. 1962), the record in which disclosed more specific questioning than that In the Twin City case it was held that the int......
-
NLRB v. South Rambler Company
...(including interest),3 and to post an appropriate notice. Apropos here is the following pronouncement from N. L. R. B. v. Twin Table & Furniture Co., Inc., 8 Cir., 308 F.2d 686 (1962): "Unless a controversy between the National Labor Relations Board and an employer as to the enforceability ......