National Labor Relations Board v. WASHINGTON, ETC. C. CO., No. 4075.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
Writing for the CourtPARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit
Citation85 F.2d 990
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND COACH CO.
Decision Date06 October 1936
Docket NumberNo. 4075.

85 F.2d 990 (1936)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
v.
WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND COACH CO.*

No. 4075.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

October 6, 1936.


Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel for National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D. C. (Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel for National Labor Relations Board, Jacob Blum, Laurence A. Knapp, Philip Levy, and Melvin C. Smith, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

85 F.2d 991

Robert E. Lynch and William J. Hughes, Jr., both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.

SOPER, Circuit Judge.

The National Labor Relations Board filed a petition with this court for the enforcement of an order issued by the Board to the Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Company directing it to cease and desist from discouraging its employees from becoming members of a local division of a labor organization known as Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, and from interfering in any other manner with its employees in their exercise of their rights to self organization, or to join labor organizations, or to bargain collectively, through representatives of their own choosing; and also affirmatively requiring the coach company to offer reinstatement to certain employees, whom it had discharged, and make them whole for any loss of pay they had suffered by reason of their discharge.

The action of the Board was based upon the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act of July 5, 1935, § 1 et seq., 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. 151 et seq. The statute creates a National Labor Relations Board (section 3 29 U.S.C.A. § 153) with power to carry out the declared purpose of Congress to eliminate the causes of substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce by encouraging the practice of collective bargaining, and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment. (Section 1 29 U.S.C.A. § 151).

The definition of the terms "employer" and "employee" contained in section 2 (29 U.S.C.A. § 152) are broad enough to include persons engaged in commerce of any sort, but the term "commerce" is defined to mean trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several states and with foreign countries, and the term "affecting commerce" means in commerce, or burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce, or leading to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce. Section 7 (29 U.S.C.A. § 157) contains the following declaration: "Sec. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."

Section 8 (29 U.S.C.A. § 158) lists the following activities, among others, as unfair labor practices for an employer: (1) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7; (3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Section 10 (29 U. S.C.A. § 160) entitled "Prevention of Unfair Labor Practices," (a) empowers the Board to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice affecting commerce; and (b) directs the Board, when it is charged that any person has engaged in such practice, to cause to be served upon him a complaint stating the charges and giving notice of hearing; and confers the right upon the person complained of to file an answer. Testimony may be taken, and if upon all the testimony the Board is of the opinion that the person named has been engaged in any such practice, the Board is required to state its findings of fact and to issue an order requiring the person to cease and desist from such practice and to take such affirmative action, including reinstatement of employees, with or without back pay as will effectuate the policies of the act.

The proceedings of the Board in the pending case included the filing of charges by the Labor Union, the issuance of a complaint and notice of hearing by the Board against the coach company, wherein it was alleged that the coach company was engaged in the operation of motor busses for the transportation of passengers and express in interstate commerce between the District of Columbia and points within the states of Virginia and Maryland, and that it had engaged in unfair labor practice within the meaning of subsections (1) and (3) of section 8 of the act (29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (1, 3) by discharging and refusing to reinstate 20 employees because of their membership and activity in the union. The respondent objected to the jurisdiction of the Board and moved that the complaint be dismissed on constitutional grounds, and without waiving these objections, filed an

85 F.2d 992
answer admitting substantially the allegations as to the nature of its business and the discharge and refusal to reinstate the employees named, but denying that it had done so because of their membership or activity in the union

A hearing was duly had during which the respondent's objections to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss the complaint were denied, and after the conclusion of the hearing, the Board made findings of fact substantially as follows: The respondent is a Virginia corporation operating motor busses on a regular schedule between points in the District of Columbia and state of Virginia and occasionally operating busses between the District of Columbia and race tracks in the state of Maryland. It holds a certificate of convenience and necessity, in accordance with the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (49 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.). It operates 48 busses and has approximately 80 employees, 50 of whom are drivers. Twenty-seven are garage employees and 3 are office employees. The respondent discharged 18 of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Foster Bros. Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 4074.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • October 6, 1936
    ...and enter into contracts of employment. This conclusion becomes inevitable when we observe that the powers conferred upon the Board to 85 F.2d 990 effectuate the policies of the act, authorize the Board to order an employer, who has been guilty of unfair labor practices, as defined in the a......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt, No. 6490.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 8, 1938
    ...U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307; National Labor Relations Board v. Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co., 4 Cir., 85 F.2d 990, affirmed 301 U.S. 142, 57 S.Ct. 648, 81 L.Ed. 965; National Labor Relations Board v. Associated Press, 2 Cir., 85 F.2d 56, affirmed 301 U.S......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. J. Freezer & Son, No. 4239.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • April 5, 1938
    ...by substantial evidence, are binding upon the courts. National Labor Relations Board v. Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co., 4 Cir., 85 F.2d 990, affirmed 301 U.S. 142, 57 S.Ct. 648, 81 L.Ed. 965; National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 58 S.Ct. 571, 576,......
3 cases
  • Foster Bros. Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 4074.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • October 6, 1936
    ...and enter into contracts of employment. This conclusion becomes inevitable when we observe that the powers conferred upon the Board to 85 F.2d 990 effectuate the policies of the act, authorize the Board to order an employer, who has been guilty of unfair labor practices, as defined in the a......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt, No. 6490.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 8, 1938
    ...U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307; National Labor Relations Board v. Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co., 4 Cir., 85 F.2d 990, affirmed 301 U.S. 142, 57 S.Ct. 648, 81 L.Ed. 965; National Labor Relations Board v. Associated Press, 2 Cir., 85 F.2d 56, affirmed 301 U.S......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. J. Freezer & Son, No. 4239.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • April 5, 1938
    ...by substantial evidence, are binding upon the courts. National Labor Relations Board v. Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co., 4 Cir., 85 F.2d 990, affirmed 301 U.S. 142, 57 S.Ct. 648, 81 L.Ed. 965; National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 58 S.Ct. 571, 576,......

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