National Labor Relations Board v. Ford
| Decision Date | 15 November 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 10605.,10605. |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. FORD et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Harold Cranefield, of Detroit, Mich., and Robert N. Denham, Gen. Counsel, N.L. R.B., of Washington, D. C. (David P. Finding, Ruth Weyand, and Thomas F. Maher, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Arthur W. Wiles, of Columbus, Ohio (Wiles & Doucher, of Columbus, Ohio, on the brief), for respondent.
Before HICKS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board petitions for a decree of enforcement of its order of March 21, 1947 against the Respondents Wilbur H. Ford, Chester Ford and John Ford, partners doing business as Ford Brothers, following the usual proceedings under § 10 of the National Labor Relations Act. 29 U.S.C.A. § 160. Jurisdiction is conceded.
The Respondents are engaged in contract hauling of gasoline and other petroleum products in Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky, with their principal place of business at Coal Grove, Ohio. Starting in 1932, their operations expanded gradually until by June 1945 they were operating 13 tractors and 17 trailer tanks and employing 23 full-time drivers and a staff of mechanics. The driver takes a tractor with accompanying trailer tank to a refinery or bulk station where an employee of the refinery loads the trailer with gasoline or other petroleum product, measures it, seals all outlets, and gives the driver a receipt showing the name of the consignee. On arrival at the destination the seals are normally broken by the consignee and the gasoline pumped off by him. Complete drainage of the trailers is a matter of some difficulty. The bottoms of the compartments are uneven, gasoline adheres to the transport walls, and residues are left because the unloading is done on unlevel surfaces. Although all reasonable efforts are made to secure a full delivery, the trailer tanks on return to Respondents' lot usually contain around three or four gallons of gasoline, sometimes more. The drivers customarily and openly drained this residue after completing their assignments, and used it in their individual cars, without objection on the part of the Respondents. At times some of it was used by some of the Respondents.
America engaged in organization activities in Respondents' business. On May 28, 1945, the union representative wrote to the Respondents claiming majority representation and asking for a conference for the purpose of negotiating a contract. Efforts to arrange a meeting were disrupted by the discharge of a driver named Edward Pancake on June 4, 1945, the details of which are hereinafter stated, and a subsequent work stoppage participated in by 15 other employees who had signed union authorizations.
Pancake was first employed by the Respondents in February 1937 as a driver at $15.00 per week. In 1940 Pancake took part in activities of the drivers to secure an advance in wages and was interrogated by Wilbur Ford for the purpose of finding out what the drivers wanted and what could be done. Pancake and other employees employed a lawyer to draw up a petition requesting an increase in wages which was signed and placed in the office. Wilbur Ford told Pancake and another driver that they did not need any contract like that. However, the desired raise in wages did not result. Over a period of time Pancake's initial salary was increased by successive raises until it was $30 per week by the middle of 1942. In July 1942, the Respondents terminated Pancake's employment because he made application for a job with a refining company without advising Respondents of his purpose to change employment. After about nine months in other employment, Pancake applied for work with the Respondents and was rehired at a base pay of $30 per week. After a few weeks his base pay was increased to $33.50 a week, which was the pay being received by other experienced drivers. His work was satisfactory during the periods of his employment, and the record shows no criticism of his driving by any of the Respondents.
During the last of May 1945 Pancake and three other employees were questioned by Wilbur Ford about their desire to have a union. In this conversation Pancake expressed the opinion that the employees wanted a union for the protection which it would afford, and gave as the underlying cause for the unrest among the drivers their desire for more money. Ford expressed disapproval of a union.
Pancake came in from a trip on the morning of June 4, 1945. Wilbur Ford observed him drawing gasoline from the trailers and putting it in the tank of his automobile. He summoned Pancake to the office and told him that he had violated a company rule forbidding such draining of gasoline. Pancake asked "what rule?" Ford merely replied that Pancake knew it was against the rule, and following a brief exchange of words told him he was discharged. Following the discharge of Pancake, 15 drivers, members of the Union, refused to drive their trucks in an effort to secure his reinstatement. At a meeting on June 6th, the Union proposed that all the drivers except Pancake be reinstated and that the issue of Pancake's right to reinstatement be submitted to arbitration. The Respondents offered to rehire, as new employees, all the drivers except Pancake, but would not agree to arbitrate or even discuss Pancake's case. The Respondents thereafter hired replacements for the union members out on strike.
The Board found that Pancake was known by the Respondents to be an active union protagonist and leader in concerted activities among the employees; that the alleged reason for his discharge was not substantiated; that his discharge was discriminatory, motivated by his union membership and activity, and designed to discourage membership in the Union, and that thereby the Respondents had interfered with and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in § 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 157; that the strike beginning June 4, 1945, resulted directly from the discriminatory discharge of Pancake, and that its continuation was also due to Respondents' unfair labor practice in refusing to rehire Pancake; and that the Respondents, by anti-union activities, had interfered and coerced their employees within the meaning of § 8(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(1). The cease and desist order of March 21, 1947 followed, including provisions for the reinstatement of Pancake and the striking employees without loss of pay, and the posting of appropriate notices.
We are of the opinion that the findings of fact of the Board are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole and accordingly are conclusive. 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e). There is considerable evidence in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Union, United Auto., Aerospace, Agr. and Implement Workers of America v. Dana Corp.
...(their) rights . . . as guaranteed by the Act.' NLRB v. Bangor Plastics, Inc., 392 F.2d 772, 775 (6th Cir. 1967). See also NLRB v. Ford, 170 F.2d 735 (6th Cir. 1948). Accord Nebraska Bulk Transport, Inc. v. NLRB, 608 F.2d 311 (8th Cir. 1979); NLRB v. South Shore Hospital, 571 F.2d 677 (1st ......
-
Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Relations Board
...exercise of employee rights under the Act. N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U.S. 584, 588, 61 S.Ct. 358, 85 L.Ed. 368; N. L. R. B. v. Ford, 6 Cir., 170 F.2d 735, 738. We think the Board was justified in its conclusion that questions 7 through 14, 21, and 25 were violative of section 8(a) (......
-
Surprenant Manufacturing Company v. N. L RB
...C.A. 7th, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 944, 84 S.Ct. 1351; Hendrix Manufacturing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 321 F.2d 100, 105, C.A. 5th; N.L.R.B. v. Ford, 170 F.2d 735, 738-739, C.A. 6th. The finding of the Trial Examiner, which was approved by the Board, was a permissible one under the circumstances under......
-
Standard Oil Company v. NLRB
...488, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456; N. L. R. B. v. Walton Manufacturing Co., 369 U.S. 404, 405, 82 S.Ct. 853, 7 L.Ed.2d 829; N. L. R. B. v. Ford, 170 F.2d 735, 739, C.A.6; Old King Cole v. N. L. R. B., 250 F.2d 791, 792, C.A.6; N. L. R. B. v. Bendix Corp. (Research Laboratories Div.), 299 F.2d......