National Labor Relations Board v. MA Hanna Co.
| Decision Date | 13 February 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 8964.,8964. |
| Citation | 125 F.2d 786 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. M. A. HANNA CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Joseph Hoskins, of Washington, D. C. (Robert B. Watts, Laurence A. Knapp, Ernest A. Gross, Samuel Edes, and Wm. J. Avrutis, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Thomas F. Veach and Luther Day, all of Cleveland, Ohio (Thomas F. Veach, of Cleveland, Ohio, Donald D. Harries and William K. Montague, both of Duluth, Minn., Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Gillette, Nye, Harries & Montague, of Duluth, Minn., on the brief), for respondents.
Before SIMONS, ALLEN, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
On a petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board, the principal question to be determined is whether there was evidence to sustain the findings of the Board that the respondents have been guilty of illegal interference, discrimination, and support of a company union.
About 1932, the respondents formed the Employees' Organization, printed its by-laws, and were active in inducing their employees to participate therein. This organization was administered by committees of employee representatives, and joint committees composed of an equal number of employees and representatives of the management. The committee meetings were held during working hours and the employees were compensated for the time therein spent. No provisions were made for general meetings of the employees. Grievances were presented to joint committees and thence to the presidents of the companies, and arbitration could be had only if the president consented. This organization continued in existence for two years after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., and when the Act was held valid by the Supreme Court, the respondents advised the employees that the organization could not be continued. There is no question that the organization, up to this point, did not comply with the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, various officials of the companies, including superintendents and foremen, became interested in advising the employees against joining an outside organization. About this time, the Steel Workers Organizing Committee of the CIO was attempting to organize the employees. A superintendent advised one of the employee representatives of the old organization that there was no use in joining an outside organization, and that the men should take over the company union and carry it on. One of the foremen told the same representative that it was foolish to pay dues to outsiders who would get the men into trouble, when they could have an organization that would cost them practically nothing. A superintendent convened a meeting of the employee representatives of the old organization, told them they could get lots more out of a local union than by affiliation with an organization like the CIO, which he referred to as a communistic organization, carried on by Communists. Thereafter, on May 1, 1937, Mr. Cannon, the assistant general manager of the M. A. Hanna Company, met with the superintendent of three of respondents' mines and with the chief engineer, and told them that the former organization could not be continued and that they should advise the representatives thereof that it was up to them as to what they did in the future. At the same time, the assistant general manager gave the superintendents a set of mimeographed bylaws, with advice to transmit them to the representatives of the old organization, with the information that they represented the revision of the bylaws of the old organization and were available for use in forming a successor union if the representatives so wished. Pursuant to such instructions, the superintendents called together the representatives of the old organization and delivered to them copies of the revised bylaws, and the message of the assistant general manager concerning their use. Thereafter, the representatives of the old organization met to discuss the formation of an inside union and voted to put the question to the employees by referendum vote; but, subsequently, at another meeting of these representatives, it was voted to discard the plan of a referendum vote; and they decided to proceed with the formation of an inside union to be known as the Independent. Shortly thereafter, membership application cards in the proposed Independent union were circulated at respondents' mines by the representatives of the former organization, and respondents, although aware of this activity, made no effort to stop this campaign, which was carried on largely during working hours. Superintendent Mahon took an especially active interest, about the first part of June, and, at a safety meeting held at one of the mines, addressed the employees, telling them that they would be better off if they joined the Independent. He compared the risk involved in choosing representatives to the danger of a child in playing with dynamite, and said that if respondents' employees had been members of the outside union they would have been in danger of being "thrown into a strike which was caused by men and called for men in Chicago, and in which we might not have any interest whatsoever." Mahon stated at this meeting that he was only expressing his personal views in the matter. On other occasions, he exhorted the employees to "go up to the machine shop and sign up right now" with the Independent; and at other times he reproached an employee for joining the CIO, referring to such union as a racket composed of a bunch of Communists. He also suggested that a man who joined the CIO was ungrateful because of everything the respondents had done for him, and told another that since he joined an outside organization, he should go back to another company where he had worked previously.
It further appears that Mr. Cannon, the assistant general manager, in questioning an applicant for employment, interrogated him as to whether he approved of a local or outside union. When a committee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Relations Board v. General Shoe Corp.
...L.Ed. 219; Labor Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U.S. 261, 268-270, 58 S.Ct. 571, 82 L.Ed. 831; National Labor Relations Board v. M. A. Hanna Co., 6 Cir., 125 F.2d 786; National Labor Relations Board v. American Rolling Mill Co., 6 Cir., 126 F.2d 38; American Enka Corporation v. ......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Ford
...686, 64 S.Ct. 830, 88 L.Ed. 1007; H. J. Heinz Company v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 518, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309; N.L. R.B. v. M. A. Hanna Co., 6 Cir., 125 F.2d 786, 788. Respondents' contention that the statements referred to are within the constitutional guarantee of free speech is answer......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Marquette Metal Products Co.
...H. J. Heinz Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U.S. 514, 518, 519, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309; National Labor Relations Board v. M. A. Hanna Co., 6 Cir., 125 F.2d 786, 788: It is ordered that a decree issue enforcing the order of the National Labor Relations Board as prayed in the ...