National Labor Relations Board v. Grace Co., No. 14107.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtSANBORN, JOHNSEN and RIDDICK, Circuit
Citation184 F.2d 126
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. GRACE CO.
Decision Date13 September 1950
Docket NumberNo. 14107.

184 F.2d 126 (1950)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
v.
GRACE CO.

No. 14107.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

September 13, 1950.


184 F.2d 127

Mozart G. Ratner, Acting Assistant General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. (David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Assistant General Counsel, and Frederick U. Reel and Irving M. Herman, attorneys, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Burr S. Stottle, Kansas City, Mo. (Robert J. Ingraham, Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for respondent.

Clif. Langsdale, Kansas City, Mo. (John J. Manning, Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for intervener, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.

Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.

RIDDICK, Circuit Judge.

The question is whether this court should grant the petition of the National Labor Relations Board for a decree enforcing its order requiring respondent to bargain collectively with the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union as exclusive representative of production employees of the respondent at its Clinton, Missouri, plant.

The Grace Company, a Missouri corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of children's wearing apparel. At all times during the proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board the company operated two plants, one at Belton and the other at Clinton, Missouri. There were 58 employees at the Belton plant and 53 at the Clinton plant. Matters concerning wages, hours, and working conditions for both plants were determined at Belton where the company maintained its management office. There was little difference in the character of work or in the working conditions at the two plants. There was little or no interchange of employees between the plants, but from the standpoint of management the two plants were operated as one.

On October 7, 1946, the employees of the Grace Company organized the Independent Union of The Grace Company of Clinton and Belton, Missouri, an unaffiliated labor organization, which began collective bargaining negotiations with respondent representing a majority of the employees of both plants. These negotiations continued until November 8, 1946, when respondent and Independent reached an understanding on

184 F.2d 128
terms and conditions of employment and reduced their understanding to writing. Because of interlineations and corrections in the written instrument, the parties thought it necessary to prepare a final draft of the agreement in corrected form before signing. This was done, and the agreement was signed by respondent and Independent on November 14, 1946

On November 13, 1946, the International filed a petition with the Board for certification as bargaining representative of the employees of respondent at its Clinton plant, claiming to represent a majority of the employees at that plant, and alleging that Independent was a company-dominated union. On December 30, 1946, Independent filed a similar petition for certification claiming to represent a majority of all employees. The petitions for certification were consolidated for hearing, after which, on May 27, 1947, the Board ordered an election at the Clinton plant.

In the consolidated hearing the Board found, over the objections of respondent and Independent, that either a company-wide unit or a plant unit would on the facts before it constitute a proper bargaining unit for the employees, the Board ruling that: "Under these circumstances * * * the determination of the unit should depend, in part, upon the desires of the employees themselves."

The Board did not find that Independent was a company-dominated union, nor did it make any finding concerning the propriety or the validity of the contract signed November 14, 1946, between Independent and respondent, nor that Independent at the time the contract was signed did not represent a majority of the employees at both plants.

At the election International received a majority of the votes of the employees at the Clinton plant. On July 8, 1947, the International was certified by the Board as their appropriate bargaining representative. Following the certification of International, respondent and International agreed upon July 18, 1947, for a meeting for collective bargaining purposes. The meeting was never held.

On July 15, 1947, Independent, in a proceeding in a Missouri State court for a declaratory judgment sustaining the validity of its bargaining agreement, obtained an order temporarily restraining respondent from "renouncing or disclaiming" its contract with Independent. The order commanded respondent to recognize its contract with Independent and to perform all its obligations thereunder pending a hearing on the merits. Respondent took the position that it was bound to obey the order of the State court until vacated. International asserted that the order was void, and that respondent was required by the Board's order of certification to ignore the State court.

On July 24, 1947, respondent filed a motion with the Board to vacate its certification of International because of respondent's contract of November 14, 1946, with Independent and because of the State court's restraining order. The motion was denied on August 11, 1947.

On July 30, 1947, International filed with the Board its charge that respondent was engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain collectively with International, and on March 15, 1948, the General Counsel of the Board, pursuant to the charges filed by International, instituted proceedings before the Board which resulted in the order of June 21, 1949, which the Board now seeks to enforce.

On December 18, 1947, respondent filed a motion in the State court to dissolve the temporary restraining order because of the Board's certification of International as bargaining representative of the Clinton plant employees. The motion was denied December 20, 1947. In the meantime International had refused a request of respondent to intervene in the State court proceeding for the purpose of dissolving the restraining order. The order...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Browne, No. 05-11137.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • October 25, 2007
    ...in the interest of stability and fairness in collective bargaining agreements." Vincent, 286 F.2d at 131 (quoting N.L.R.B. v. Grace Co., 184 F.2d 126, 129 (8th Second, and more importantly, an "agreement constitutes a bar to the holding of a representation election for the life of the agree......
  • Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. U.S., No. Slip Op. 00-66.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • June 7, 2000
    ...in such a case is not reviewable except upon a showing of substantial prejudice to the complaining party.'") (quoting NLRB v. Grace Co., 184 F.2d 126, 129 (8th Cir.1953)). The Government's problem, however, lies in the fact that this explanation was made only by the Department of Justice in......
  • Usery v. BOARD OF ED. OF BALTIMORE CTY., Civ. No. K-76-672.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • September 28, 1978
    ...prejudice to the complaining party." NLRB v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 8 Cir., 205 F.2d 763, 764. And see NLRB v. Grace Co., 8 Cir., 184 F.2d 126, 129; Sun Oil Co. v. FPC, 5 Cir., 256 F.2d 233; McKenna v. Seaton, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 50, 259 F.2d Mr. Justice Douglas concluded that "unlike some rul......
  • Twin City Freight, Inc. v. United States, No. 4-71 Civ. 619.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • December 5, 1972
    ...prejudice to the complaining party." NLRB v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 8 Cir., 205 F.2d 763, 764. And See NLRB v. Grace Co., 8 Cir., 184 F.2d 126, 129; Sun Oil Co. v. FPC, 5 Cir., 256 F.2d 233; McKenna v. Seaton, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 50, 259 F.2d In the instant case, on the basis of the verified s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
47 cases
  • U.S. v. Browne, No. 05-11137.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • October 25, 2007
    ...the interest of stability and fairness in collective bargaining agreements." Vincent, 286 F.2d at 131 (quoting N.L.R.B. v. Grace Co., 184 F.2d 126, 129 (8th Second, and more importantly, an "agreement constitutes a bar to the holding of a representation election for the life of th......
  • Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. U.S., No. Slip Op. 00-66.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • June 7, 2000
    ...such a case is not reviewable except upon a showing of substantial prejudice to the complaining party.'") (quoting NLRB v. Grace Co., 184 F.2d 126, 129 (8th Cir.1953)). The Government's problem, however, lies in the fact that this explanation was made only by the Department of Justice ......
  • Usery v. BOARD OF ED. OF BALTIMORE CTY., Civ. No. K-76-672.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • September 28, 1978
    ...prejudice to the complaining party." NLRB v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 8 Cir., 205 F.2d 763, 764. And see NLRB v. Grace Co., 8 Cir., 184 F.2d 126, 129; Sun Oil Co. v. FPC, 5 Cir., 256 F.2d 233; McKenna v. Seaton, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 50, 259 F.2d Mr. Justice Douglas concluded that "unlik......
  • Twin City Freight, Inc. v. United States, No. 4-71 Civ. 619.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • December 5, 1972
    ...prejudice to the complaining party." NLRB v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 8 Cir., 205 F.2d 763, 764. And See NLRB v. Grace Co., 8 Cir., 184 F.2d 126, 129; Sun Oil Co. v. FPC, 5 Cir., 256 F.2d 233; McKenna v. Seaton, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 50, 259 F.2d In the instant case, on the basis of the verif......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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