National Labor Relations Board v. Parran, 7235.

Decision Date10 October 1956
Docket NumberNo. 7235.,7235.
Citation237 F.2d 373
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. Thomas PARRAN, Jr., t/a Silver Spring Transit Company and/or Suburban Transit Company, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Arnold Ordman, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel and Nancy M. Sherman, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on brief), for petitioner.

S. Harrison Kahn, Washington, D. C. (David Jay Hyman, Washington, D. C., on brief), for respondent.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge, and BRYAN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board which directed one Thomas Parran, Jr., trading as Silver Spring Transit Company to bargain with a labor union as bargaining representative of his employees. Parran had acquired motor coach lines from the Oriole Motor Coach lines which on September 28, 1953 had been found guilty of unfair labor practices and ordered by the Board to bargain with the union. Parran had been in charge of Oriole's affairs since the preceding February and had assisted in carrying on in its behalf the negotiations with the union which the Board condemned as failure to bargain in good faith. Prior to the time of these negotiations he had arranged to purchase the franchise and equipment of Oriole, and was financing its operations pending the approval of the purchase by the Interstate Commerce Commission, which approval was given on August 10, 1953, and the purchase was consummated on September 21, 1953. Following the order to bargain issued against Oriole on September 28, 1953, the union called on Parran to bargain, but he refused to do so on the ground that as purchaser of the business he had no obligation to comply with the order.

The facts are fully set forth in the findings of the Trial Examiner, which are amply sustained by the evidence in the record and need not be repeated here. In adopting his recommendations the Board said:

"We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent Parran, as successor to Oriole is responsible for remedying Oriole\'s unfair labor practices. As bearing upon this responsibility, we note that, because of his status as a prospective purchaser, Parran\'s relation to Oriole prior to his acquisition of this Company was more that of an owner than of a mere general manager. Thus, Parran became manager of Oriole on February 25, 1953, and about 7 days thereafter a petition for approval of the sale of Oriole to Parran was filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was during the pendency of this sale that Oriole committed the unfair labor practices here involved, in some of which Parran personally participated. Furthermore, Parran not only performed the duties of a general manager, he
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Overnite Transportation Company v. NLRB
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • February 6, 1967
    ...Cir. 1964); NLRB v. McFarland, 306 F. 2d 219 (10th Cir. 1962); NLRB v. Auto Ventshade, Inc., 276 F.2d 303 (5th Cir. 1960); NLRB v. Parran, 237 F.2d 373 (4th Cir. 1956); NLRB v. Lunder Shoe Corp., 211 F.2d 284 (1st Cir. 1954); NLRB v. Armato, 199 F.2d 800 (7th Cir. 1952); NLRB v. Blair Quarr......
  • Davis v. HUTTIG SASH AND DOOR COMPANY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • June 20, 1968
    ...Bakery Corp., 330 F.2d 921 (Sixth Cir. 1964); N. L. R. B. v. Auto Ventshade, Inc., 276 F.2d 303 (Fifth Cir. 1960); N. L. R. B. v. Parran, 237 F.2d 373 (Fourth Cir. 1956); N. L. R. B. v. Lunder Shoe Corp., 211 F.2d 284 (First Cir. 1954); N. L. R. B. v. Armato, 199 F.2d 800 (Seventh Cir. 1952......
  • NLRB v. FM Reeves and Sons, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • December 17, 1959
    ...its discretion by asserting jurisdiction over respondent. See N. L. R. B. v. W. B. Jones Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 245 F.2d 388; N. L. R. B. v. Parran, 4 Cir., 237 F.2d 373; Optical Workers' Union, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir., 229 F. 2d 170, certiorari denied 351 U.S. 963, 76 S.Ct. 1027, 100 L.Ed......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Jones Sausage Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • July 12, 1958
    ...non curat lex does not require the Board to refuse to take jurisdiction of the instant case." See, also, National Labor Relations Board v. Parran, 4 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 373, 375. II — The Discharges of Farrior and (a) — Lena Mae Farrior had been employed by Jones Sausage Company nearly ten......
  • 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