National Labor Relations Board v. Porcelain Steels
| Decision Date | 30 November 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 9512.,9512. |
| Citation | 138 F.2d 840 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. PORCELAIN STEELS, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Howard Lichtenstein, of Washington, D. C. (Robert B. Watts, Ernest A. Gross, Howard Lichtenstein, Frank Donner, and Irene R. Shriber, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Paul J. Bickel, of Cleveland, Ohio (Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Paul J. Bickel, and Roy C. Green, all of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for respondent.
Before HICKS, SIMONS, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board found on substantial evidence that the respondent Porcelain Steels, Inc., had been guilty of unfair labor practices and, in an order entered January 20, 1943, directed the company to cease and desist from such practices; from giving effect to a contract entered into on December 1, 1941, with the Porcelain Employees' Association, which respondent had fostered and dominated; and from discouraging membership in or refusing to bargain collectively with the International Association of Machinists, District 54 (A. F. of L.). The Board further ordered the respondent to reinstate with back pay two discharged employees; to withdraw recognition from and completely disestablish the Porcelain Employees' Association and, upon request, to bargain collectively with the International Union as the exclusive representative of the company's production and maintenance employees, except those engaged in clerical and supervisory work; and to post appropriate notices.
In opposing the petition to this court for enforcement of the Labor Board's order, respondent says that International Association of Machinists, District 54 (hereinafter referred to as the Union), having lost its majority representation prior to the hearing before the Examiner in July 1942, and having practically no adherents at this time, is not in fact the bargaining representative of respondent's employees; that the failure of the company to recognize the Union as bargaining agent of its employees some two years ago has no bearing now; and that respondent should be permitted to adduce additional evidence probative of the fact that the Union is not the authorized agent of the present employees of the company.
The intermediate report of the Trial Examiner, which was adopted by the National Labor Relations Board, set forth that on November 17, 1941, the Union submitted to regional officers of the Labor Board cards, signed by 33 of the total number of 43 to 46 employees of the respondent, designating the Union as their collective bargaining agent. The Union's majority was found further corroborated by the circumstance that in early November 35 or 40 employees wore union buttons around the plant. Certain revocations of designations of the Union as collective bargaining agent were found to have followed the unfair labor practices of respondent, and were therefore disregarded by the Examiner and the Board in computing the Union's majority. The loss of that majority was found upon substantial evidence to have occurred after conception and execution by respondent of a systematic plan of unfair labor practices. Instead of checking the union designation cards against its payroll, as had been requested by the Union, the company undermined the Union's majority by encouraging and contributing to the organization of the company-dominated Association. The action of respondent in signing a collective bargaining contract with the Association to be effective December 1, 1941, was deemed by both the Trial Examiner and the Labor Board "a refusal to bargain with the Union." The Association did not come into being until employees began to wear Union buttons and until the Union representative had requested recognition. This, coupled with the superintendent's hostility to the Union, his manifest favoritism toward the Association, the company's sponsorship of the Association meeting held in the plant during working hours, and the hasty recognition accorded the Association by the company, evidenced in the immediate signing of a contract with it granting wage increases which the superintendent had promised, led the Trial Examiner and the Board to conclude that the Association was "the creature of the respondent." The Examiner and the Board inferred that, except for the unfair labor practices of the respondent, the Union "would have been able to recruit from among the new employees a sufficient number to maintain its majority."
A direct finding upon substantial evidence was made by the Labor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Inter-City Advertising Co.
...refusal to bargain has not caused the loss of the union majority. See cases cited just above and see, also, National Labor Relations Board v. Porcelain Steels, 6 Cir., 138 F.2d 840; National Labor Relations Board v. Brown Paper Mill Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 867, 872, certiorari denied 310 U.S.......
-
GREAT SOUTHERN T. CO. v. National L. Relations Board
...v. Biles Coleman Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d 197; Continental Oil Co. v. N.L. R.B., 10 Cir., 1940, 113 F.2d 473; N.L.R.B. v. Porcelain Steels, 6 Cir., 138 F.2d 840, decided Nov. 30, While it is true that the loss of majority in the instant case occurred, not among the employees compos......
-
SH Camp & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
...before the time set for the casting of ballots is not in the least commended. But, as we said in National Labor Relations Board v. Porcelain Steels, Inc., 6 Cir., 138 F.2d 840, 841: "Election methods considered `suitable' by the courts are not to be substituted by them, for the reason that ......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Drummond, 11958.
...certiorari denied 341 U.S. 914, 71 S.Ct. 734, 95 L.Ed. 1350; N. L. R. B. v. Kobritz, 1 Cir., 193 F.2d 8, 14; N. L. R. B. v. Porcelain Steels, Inc., 6 Cir., 138 F.2d 840. It is ordered that the National Labor Relations Board's Order of January 27, 1953 be ...