National Labor Relations Board v. Popeil Brothers

• Decision Date: 01 October 1954
• Docket Number: No. 11102.,11102.
• Citation: 216 F.2d 66
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. POPEIL BROTHERS, Inc., Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

216 F.2d 66 (1954)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v.POPEIL BROTHERS, Inc., Respondent.

No. 11102.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

October 1, 1954.

David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Ackerberg, Atty., N. L. R. B., Chicago, Ill., George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Samuel M. Singer, Ruth V. Reel, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

George B. Christensen, Fred H. Daugherty, Chicago, Ill., Winston, Strawn, Black & Towner, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for respondent.

Before MAJOR, LINDLEY and SWAIM, Circuit Judges.

MAJOR, Circuit Judge.

This case is here upon the petition of the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to Sec. 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S. C.A. § 151 et seq., for enforcement of its order issued against respondent on December 17, 1952, following the usual proceedings under Sec. 10 of the Act.The Board's decision and order are reported in 101 N.L.R.B. 1083.Admittedly the Board had jurisdiction of the proceedings and this court of its petition for enforcement.

The complaint alleged violations of Secs. 8(a)(1)and8(a)(3) of the Act.After a sharply contested hearing, a Trial Examiner found and reported that respondent had committed unfair labor practices in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) but exonerated it from any violation under Sec. 8(a)(3).The Board approved the findings of the Examiner upon which the 8(a)(1) violations were predicated but rejected his findings upon which respondent was exonerated as to the 8(a)(3) violation or, at any rate, disapproved of the Examiner's conclusion in that respect and found respondent guilty of unfair labor practices under 8(a)(3) as well as 8(a)(1).

While numerous questions are argued, we are convinced from our study of the record that the matter can be disposed of in comparatively short order.The activities from which the controversy stems commenced in August, 1950, when the Basic Processor's Union, Local 44, A. F. of L., commenced a campaign to organize the fifty or sixty employees at respondent's Sangamon Street plant in Chicago, which was engaged in the manufacture or assembly of plastic household articles.In the interest of brevity, we think it sufficient to state that the Union employed the usual and common methods in its attempt to organize the employees.Organizers distributed leaflets and Union application cards and two meetings were held, the first around September 1, and the second on the evening of September 13.By September 14, it appears that most of the employees had joined the Union and for the first time wore Union buttons.In mid-August respondent's president had refused to recognize the Union, in response to a request by a Union official.On September 9, the Union petitioned the Board for an election, which was not processed, assertedly because the Union drive collapsed on account of respondent's anti-Union campaign.It is not claimed or found, however, that respondent's refusal to recognize the Union constituted a violation of the Act.

Pertaining to the 8(a)(1) violations, the complaint in substance alleged that respondent interrogated its employees and applicants for employment regarding their membership in labor organizations, including the Union, and made threats of reprisal and promises of benefits to them in connection therewith; interrogated its employees regarding their activities in connection with the Union; induced or attempted to induce certain employees to attend the meetings of the Union for the purpose of spying on the employees and reporting such activities to respondent; from about September 1 to September 15, 1950, changed the working hours of its employees without notice and caused them to enter and leave the plant by unaccustomed entrances in order to prevent their meeting or encountering the Union's organizers outside the plant; on two occasions assembled it employees in the plant and distributed to them certain gifts and gratuities as an inducement to abandon their Union activities; announced and put into effect wage increases, new vacation and hospitalization plans, in order to discourage Union activities by its employees; engaged in surveillance of its employees' activities with the Union; threatened certain employees with reprisals because of their activities in connection with the Union, and attempted by offer of benefit to induce certain former employees not to appear and testify at the hearing.

Respondent by its answer, while admitting certain allegations of the complaint, denied the commission of any and all unfair labor practices.The Examiner found that respondent did not engage in surveillance of its employees' activities with the Union and that it had not attempted by offer of benefit to induce certain former employees not to appear and testify at the hearing.Otherwise, the Examiner found against respondent as to the 8(a)(1) violations substantially as alleged.As noted, the Board approved such findings, and its order, in part, is predicated thereon.

No good purpose could be served in setting forth or discussing the testimony as it bears upon this phase of the order.It is sufficient to state that we have read it and, with one exception subsequently noted, are convinced that we would not be justified in refusing to accept the findings of the Board, particularly in view of the fact that they are consistent with those of the Trial Examiner, and this notwithstanding that we do not believe the violations are as aggravated and serious as the Board asserts.Furthermore, it may be that certain of respondent's activities, standing alone and independent of other considerations, would not, as it argues, constitute an unfair labor practice.However, the Examiner and the Board were not required to treat each item of respondent's activities separately and apart from all others, but were entitled to consider them as a whole.When so considered, we think the Board's findings are justified, at any rate that they must be accepted by a reviewing court.

As noted, one of respondent's activities which the Board and the Examiner found to be an unfair labor practice was that respondent changed the working hours of its employees without notice and caused them to enter and leave the plant by unaccustomed...