NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. Montag Bros., 10813.

Decision Date03 February 1944
Docket NumberNo. 10813.,10813.
Citation140 F.2d 730
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. MONTAG BROS., Inc.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Robert B. Watts, General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Howard Lichtenstein, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., both of Washington, D. C., and Dan M. Byrd, Jr., Atty., N. L. R. B., of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.

Barry Wright, of Rome, Ga., and Madison Richardson, of Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.

Before HUTCHESON, McCORD, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

McCORD, Circuit Judge.

National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order issued against Montag Brothers, Inc., pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.

Montag Brothers is a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Georgia. It has its principal place of business in Atlanta, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of social stationery, school tablets, and allied items.

It is without dispute that the Corporation was engaged in interstate commerce, and no question is raised as to jurisdiction.

The important facts are these: United Wholesale, Retail and Warehouse Employees of America, affiliated with the C. I. O. attempted to organize Corporation's employees into a union in April, 1941. On November 7, 1941, an election was held under Board auspices to determine whether or not the employees wanted to be represented by this union. They voted against such representation and thereafter no attempt was made to further organize this union.

An attempt was made to organize the employees of the printing department early in November, 1942, under the American Federation of Labor; this union filed a petition with the Board for investigation and certification of representatives. The unit sought to be organized numbered about twenty-two employees of the printing department. Notice was issued for a hearing on November 10, 1942. On November 9, the pressmen struck without previous warning and picketed the plant. The parties agree that this strike was not authorized by appropriate union authority and did not result from any unfair labor practices on the part of the Corporation. It involved twenty-two of the three hundred fifty employees of Corporation in Atlanta. Picketing continued until about December 23, 1942.

On November 9, 1942, when approximately twenty-four employees of the Corporation appeared for work they found a picket line and refused to enter the plant, and so did not work on that day. Two of that number, McCain and Kuykendall, did not cross the picket line or enter the plant, but remained in the vicinity of the plant on the 9th and 10th of November. These two women had been leaders in the attempted organization of the union in the spring of 1941. They were not interested in the strike directly, but one had a relative who was interested, and after consultation and inquiry they called up an officer of the Corporation and asked to be allowed to return to their positions. A number of the employees who had remained away from work altogether, but who were not employed in the press department, including these two women, were instructed to report at the office on the morning of November 11, 1942. They were each interviewed by one Shulhafer in the presence of two other officers of the Corporation. All of the employees interviewed except McCain and Kuykendall were permitted to return to their positions. Shulhafer asked McCain and Kuykendall why they did not come to work and they gave their reasons, one being that she was afraid to cross...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • NLRB v. Southern Greyhound Lines
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 20, 1970
    ...encountered parts of the problem, but we have never considered the problem in the wholistic form here presented. In NLRB v. Montag Bros., Inc. 5 Cir. 1944, 140 F.2d 730 this court affirmed without discussion a Board finding that it was an unfair labor practice to discharge non-union employe......
  • NLRB v. LG Everist, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 23, 1964
    ...operation of an employer\'s business, an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8(a) (1) and (3) occurs. See N. L. R. B. v. Montag Bros., Inc., 140 F.2d 730 (C.A.5, 1944), and perhaps J. A. Bentley Lumber Co. v. N. L. R. B., 180 F.2d 641 (C.A.5, 1950). See also N. L. R. B. v. John S. Swift......
  • NLRB v. Cone Brothers Contracting Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 29, 1963
    ...employer nothing. The question is whether their discharges constituted an unfair labor practice. This court in N. L. R. B. v. Montag Bros., Inc., 140 F.2d 730 (C.A. 5, 1944), and it would seem also in J. A. Bentley Lumber Co. v. N. L. R. B., 180 F.2d 641 (C.A. 5, 1950), held, but without an......

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