National Labor Relations Board v. Hinde & Dauch Paper Co.
| Decision Date | 07 December 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 5810.,5810. |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. HINDE & DAUCH PAPER CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Frederick U. Reel, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D. C. (David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, Ruth Weyand, Acting Assistant General Counsel, and Thomas F. Maher, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Fred G. Pollard and Guy B. Hazelgrove, both of Richmond, Va., for respondent.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, DOBIE, Circuit Judge, and CHESNUT, District Judge.
This is a petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board directing the Hinde & Dauch Paper Company to cease and desist from unfair labor practices. The order is based upon nothing more than a single inquiry by a foreman of one of the employees as to how she intended to vote in an employees' election and a statement by the same foreman to another employee that, if the plant were organized and the union called for a strike, the owner could close the plant down and forget about it in view of the number of other plants that it was operating. With respect to the latter statement it appears that there was no positive threat even on the part of the foreman that the plant would be closed in case of unionization, but a mere argumentative statement that it could be closed if a strike were called in view of the number of other plants owned. There is nothing to show that either the inquiry or the statement was made with the approval of management, that they constituted part of a program of intimidation, or that any one other than those to whom they were made had even so much as heard of them. On the other hand, the uncontradicted evidence showed clearly that, both by letter and by speech of its plant manager, the employer was at pains to make clear to all employees that they would not be discriminated against for union activities or for the manner in which they voted in the election. Under such circumstances, the two isolated instances found by the Board furnish no adequate ground for finding that the employer has been guilty of unfair labor practices or for granting injunctive relief. The petition will be dismissed on the authority of our decision in N. L. R. B. v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 4 Cir., 114 F.2d 796, 802, where the rule applicable was stated as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Time-O-Matic, Inc. v. NLRB
...conduct such as was involved in Ohio Associated Tel. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 6 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 664, 668; N. L. R. B. v. Hinde & Dauch Paper Co., 4 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 240 both relied on by petitioner. The instant case does not involve "isolated expressions" of a minor supervisory employee......
- Shotkin v. General Electric Co.
-
NLRB v. Consolidated D. Elec. Co., Div. of C. Corp.
...supervisor out of approximately 50.13 It is the very type of statement which this Court found harmless in N. L. R. B. v. Hinde & Dauch Paper Co. (4th Cir. 1948) 171 F.2d 240, 241, "But mere isolated expressions of minor supervisory employees, which appear to be nothing more than the utteran......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Mississippi Products
...Co. v. N. L. R. B., 10 Cir., 195 F.2d 136. 9 Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Hart Cotton Mills, 4 Cir., 190 F.2d 964, 973-974; N. L. R. B. v. Hinde & Dauch Paper Co., 5 Cir., 171 F.2d 240. ...