National Labor Relations Board v. WT Grant Co., No. 13133.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtHEALY and POPE, Circuit , and HARRISON
Citation199 F.2d 711
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. W. T. GRANT CO.
Decision Date10 November 1952
Docket NumberNo. 13133.

199 F.2d 711 (1952)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
v.
W. T. GRANT CO.

No. 13133.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

November 10, 1952.


George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, NLRB, David P. Findling, Asst., A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Coun., Marcel Mallet-Prevost and Irving M. Herman, Attys., NLRB, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Eugene M. Foley, New York City, for respondent.

Before HEALY and POPE, Circuit Judges, and HARRISON, District Judge.

HEALY, Circuit Judge.

This matter is here on petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of an order issued against respondent, the operator of a store at San Jose.1

In ruling on the case the Board adopted the findings of the trial examiner and approved of his report and recommendations. It concluded that respondent had engaged in practices violative of § 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1, 5). In summary, these practices comprehended the interrogation of certain employees concerning union membership; a unilateral grant of wage and other benefits with intent to discourage union affiliation; respondent's insistence upon a Board election prior to bargaining, an insistence found to be motivated by a desire to gain time in which to undermine the union; and finally an anticipatory threat to close the store rather than accede to a union shop.

It is not disputed that the appropriate bargaining unit in this case consisted of all employees at the San Jose store, exclusive of supervisors. On January 5, 1950 an agent of the Retail Clerk's Union wrote respondent's manager requesting a bargaining conference, the letter being received on January 6. As of January 5 there were 40 employees in the unit. On or prior to that date 18 of them had signed cards designating as their bargaining representative Local 428 of the Retail Clerks. Three other employees, making 21, or a majority of the whole, signed like designations on January 6. Respondent argues that the written request for bargaining was nugatory inasmuch as on the day it was mailed the union did not represent a majority. The argument is specious, particularly as it appears that the union representative called personally on the manager a few days later and again requested bargaining.

The Board found, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that the majority representation continued through the work week ending January 25, 1950. On the latter date a meeting was held between representatives

199 F.2d 712
of the union on the one hand and respondent's manager and its labor counsel on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Local 164, Brotherhood of Painters v. NLRB, No. 15643.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 27, 1961
    ...Relations Board, 7 Cir., 170 F.2d 247, 12 A.L.R.2d 240; and union security, National Labor Relations Board v. W. T. Grant Co., 9 Cir., 199 F.2d 711, National Labor Relations Board v. Andrew Jergens Co., 9 Cir., 175 F.2d 130.5 It was a "direct frontal attack" upon a vital problem. Cf. Local ......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Geigy Co., No. 13686.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 28, 1954
    ...of authorization cards. See N. L. R. B. v. Trimfit of California, Inc., 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 206; N. L. R. B. v. W. T. Grant Co., 9 Cir., 199 F.2d 711; Zall v. N. L. R. B., 9 Cir., 202 F.2d 499, 501. It is argued, however, that in the instant case the signing of the cards by the employees was i......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Hamilton, No. 4953.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • May 5, 1955
    ...N.L.R.B. v. Poultry Enterprises, Inc., 5 Cir., 207 F.2d 522; N.L.R.B. v. Stewart, 5 Cir., 207 F.2d 8; N.L.R.B. v. W. T. Grant Co., 9 Cir., 199 F.2d 711, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 928, 73 S.Ct. 497, 97 L.Ed. 712; N.L.R.B. v. Kobritz, 1 Cir., 193 F.2d 8; Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 87 ......
  • Schaffer v. Board of Educ. of City of St. Louis, No. 63575
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 23, 1993
    ...of the fair share provision here are properly considered "conditions of employment" and must be bargained for. See NLRB v. W.T. Grant Co., 199 F.2d 711, 712 (9th Cir.1952); Local 164, Bhd. of Painters v. NLRB, 293 F.2d 133, 137 (D.C.Cir.1961); NLRB v. Bricklayers & Masons Int'l Union, 405 F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Local 164, Brotherhood of Painters v. NLRB, No. 15643.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 27, 1961
    ...Relations Board, 7 Cir., 170 F.2d 247, 12 A.L.R.2d 240; and union security, National Labor Relations Board v. W. T. Grant Co., 9 Cir., 199 F.2d 711, National Labor Relations Board v. Andrew Jergens Co., 9 Cir., 175 F.2d 130.5 It was a "direct frontal attack" upon a vital problem. Cf. Local ......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Geigy Co., No. 13686.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 28, 1954
    ...of authorization cards. See N. L. R. B. v. Trimfit of California, Inc., 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 206; N. L. R. B. v. W. T. Grant Co., 9 Cir., 199 F.2d 711; Zall v. N. L. R. B., 9 Cir., 202 F.2d 499, 501. It is argued, however, that in the instant case the signing of the cards by the employees was i......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Hamilton, No. 4953.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • May 5, 1955
    ...N.L.R.B. v. Poultry Enterprises, Inc., 5 Cir., 207 F.2d 522; N.L.R.B. v. Stewart, 5 Cir., 207 F.2d 8; N.L.R.B. v. W. T. Grant Co., 9 Cir., 199 F.2d 711, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 928, 73 S.Ct. 497, 97 L.Ed. 712; N.L.R.B. v. Kobritz, 1 Cir., 193 F.2d 8; Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 87 ......
  • Schaffer v. Board of Educ. of City of St. Louis, No. 63575
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 23, 1993
    ...of the fair share provision here are properly considered "conditions of employment" and must be bargained for. See NLRB v. W.T. Grant Co., 199 F.2d 711, 712 (9th Cir.1952); Local 164, Bhd. of Painters v. NLRB, 293 F.2d 133, 137 (D.C.Cir.1961); NLRB v. Bricklayers & Masons Int'l Union, 405 F......
  • 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