National Labor Relations Board v. Brown Paper M. Co., No. 9250.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtFOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit
Citation108 F.2d 867
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BROWN PAPER MILL CO., Inc.
Decision Date18 March 1940
Docket NumberNo. 9250.

108 F.2d 867 (1940)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
v.
BROWN PAPER MILL CO., Inc.

No. 9250.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 17, 1940.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1940.


108 F.2d 868

Chas. Fahy, Gen. Counsel, Robert B. Watts, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Mortimer B. Wolf, Bertram Edises, and Morris P. Glushien, all of Washington, D. C., for National Labor Relations Board.

Clyde R. Brown, of Monroe, La., and L. J. Benckenstein, of Beaumont, Tex., for respondent.

J. B. Thornhill, of Monroe, La., and Bentley G. Byrnes, of New Orleans, La., for interveners.

Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to charges by the International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, that Brown Paper Mill, Inc., of Monroe, La., has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Chapter 7, National Labor Relations Act,1 there was a complaint and hearing under the act. The

108 F.2d 869
charges were, (1) that in violation of Sections 1572 and 1583, respondent had interfered with and was interfering with its employees in the exercise of their right of self-organization and representation, by assisting in the formation and administration of a labor organization of its employees, known as the Brown Paper Mill Employees Association, (2) that because of their membership in and affiliation with complainant, respondent had discharged three named employees. There were findings and an order4 sustaining the complaint of unfair labor practices as to the "association" but rejecting it as to the discharged employees. By this petition, the Board seeks a court decree to enforce its order. The respondent, Brown Paper Mill, insists that the findings and order, as to unfair labor practices, are without support in the evidence, and that if they are, the order is invalid and improper in three respects

(1) Because it would compel it against its will to admit an infraction of the law and to confess a commission of an illegal act.

(2) There is no reasonable ground for disestablishment of the Brown Paper Mill Employees Association.

(3) The order as drawn gives the impression that respondent's employees are prevented from organizing an independent association. It therefore opposes the petition altogether, and in the alternative,

108 F.2d 870
seeks amendment of the order. Appearing by intervention, International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, and three discharged employees of respondent, oppose the enforcement of the order to the extent that it dismisses the complaint as to the three discharged employees. The Brown Paper Mill Employees Association intervenes to oppose the Board's order, particularly that part of it requiring its disestablishment as representative of the employees

Respondent and the intervening association recognize the burden the act imposes upon them, to show that the Board's findings and order are without support in the evidence. They vigorously insist though, that they have more than carried it by the testimony of the "association's" 708 member witnesses, that they were not coerced, dominated or interfered with by respondent and that they want to be represented by the "association;" the testimony of respondent's witnesses that they had not attempted to coerce, dominate or interfere with any of the employees, and the absence of any testimony by the Board's witnesses of the exercise by respondent, of domination, coercion or interference. The Board, on its part, insists, that the evidence that the membership campaign of, and solicitation of the dues5 for, the "association," was carried on on company time, with company support, through the active interference of tour bosses and others interested on the company's side; that its meetings, both organizational and otherwise, were carried on with the approval and consent of the company on company property, while the meetings of complainant Brotherhood were under company surveillance, and that its organization was begun and fostered at the critical time of the drive of complainant to unionize the plant, after the vice-president and general manager of the company had stated; that the company had not dealt with organized labor in the past, that it was opposed to labor unions, that he recognized that its employees had a right to organize, that if they did organize and the law required it, respondent would deal with them, as it intended to stay within the law, is sufficient without more to support its findings and order. But, it insists that there is much more, in the undisputed testimony as to the formation, first, under company auspices and with company support of the Brown Paper Mill Employees Mutual Benefit Association, and that so organized, the subsequent reorganization under the name intervenor now uses, could not and did not change, the status of the "association," as one not freely formed and organized by the employees, but formed, organized and maintained under the aegis and support of the company. The Board insists in short that it was orginally launched under company auspices to an extent sufficient, at least, to deprive it of the character of a labor organization freely formed and operated by the men themselves, and give it that of one coming into being marked, and in law continuing to be marked, as a company dominated and supported union. Pointing to the declaration of policy contained in Section 151, "it is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States * * * by encouraging the practice and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp., Laundry Drivers and Helpers Local No. 88, No. 88
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 26, 1960
    ...when an inside union is formed behind picket lines close scrutiny of its genesis is required. N. L. R. B. v. Brown Paper Mill Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 867, 871, certiorari denied 310 U.S. 651, 60 S.Ct. 1104, 84 L.Ed. 1416; N. L. R. [53 Cal.2d 461] B. v. Summers Fertilizer Co., supra, 251 F.2d ......
  • McNealy v. Becnel, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2181 SECTION: "E" (2)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • October 17, 2016
    ...213 F.3d 267, 276 (5th Cir. 2000). 57. See Eastex, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 437 U.S. 556, 565 n.14 (1978); N.L.R.B. v. Brown Paper Mill Co., 108 F.2d 867, 870 (5th Cir. 1940). 58. R. Doc. 114 at 7. 59. R. Doc. 114 at 1, 22. 60. R. Doc. 114 at 22. 61. Thomas v. LTV Corp., 39 F.3d 611, 614 (5th Cir.......
  • Oughton v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 7336.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • February 26, 1941
    ...Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 1940, 111 F.2d 291; National Labor Relations Board v. Brown Paper Mill Co., 5 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 867; National Labor Relations Board v. Louisville Refining Co., 6 Cir., 1939, 102 F.2d 678; M. H. Ritzwoller Co. v. National Labor Relations Boar......
  • Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. National LR Board, No. 3437
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • October 8, 1940
    ...and that the board's conclusions are in accord with that purpose." In National Labor Relations Board v. Brown Paper Mill Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 867, 871, the court said: "Therefore, when once it appears that management has had a hand in organizing, supporting or in any wise interfe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp., Laundry Drivers and Helpers Local No. 88, No. 88
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 26, 1960
    ...when an inside union is formed behind picket lines close scrutiny of its genesis is required. N. L. R. B. v. Brown Paper Mill Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 867, 871, certiorari denied 310 U.S. 651, 60 S.Ct. 1104, 84 L.Ed. 1416; N. L. R. [53 Cal.2d 461] B. v. Summers Fertilizer Co., supra, 251 F.2d ......
  • McNealy v. Becnel, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2181 SECTION: "E" (2)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • October 17, 2016
    ...213 F.3d 267, 276 (5th Cir. 2000). 57. See Eastex, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 437 U.S. 556, 565 n.14 (1978); N.L.R.B. v. Brown Paper Mill Co., 108 F.2d 867, 870 (5th Cir. 1940). 58. R. Doc. 114 at 7. 59. R. Doc. 114 at 1, 22. 60. R. Doc. 114 at 22. 61. Thomas v. LTV Corp., 39 F.3d 611, 614 (5th Cir.......
  • Oughton v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 7336.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • February 26, 1941
    ...Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 1940, 111 F.2d 291; National Labor Relations Board v. Brown Paper Mill Co., 5 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 867; National Labor Relations Board v. Louisville Refining Co., 6 Cir., 1939, 102 F.2d 678; M. H. Ritzwoller Co. v. National Labor Relations Boar......
  • Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. National LR Board, No. 3437
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • October 8, 1940
    ...and that the board's conclusions are in accord with that purpose." In National Labor Relations Board v. Brown Paper Mill Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 867, 871, the court said: "Therefore, when once it appears that management has had a hand in organizing, supporting or in any wise interfe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT