National Labor Relations Board v. Todd Co.

Citation173 F.2d 705
Decision Date30 March 1949
Docket NumberDocket 20990.,No. 24,24
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

David P. Findling, of Washington, D. C. (Ruth Weyand, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Thomas B. Sweeney, and A. Norman Somers, all of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner.

Harris, Beach, Keating, Wilcox & Dale, of Rochester, N. Y., for respondent.

Before L. HAND, Chief Judge, and SWAN and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

We discern no impropriety in the Board's procedure in transferring the case to itself without receiving an Intermediate Report from the first Trial Examiner.1 Moreover, at the subsequent hearing before the second Examiner, the Todd Company had full opportunity to have him see and hear all the witnesses who had previously testified, and he issued an Intermediate Report.

The Board, adopting his findings which were based on ample evidence, found that the Company did not bargain in good faith in that it negotiated with a fixed determination not to sign a contract with the union even if it and the union should arrive at all the terms of an agreement. The evidence shows, for instance, that the company had adopted a "principle not to sign an agreement," and that a proposal that it give the union a letter stating the terms of an agreement, if one were reached, was refused by the company because the signing of a letter would be "just as legal and binding as the signing of a contract." We agree with the Board in rejecting, as "without merit and contrary to the established law on the subject," the contentions of the company (1) that the question of whether a contract should be signed is a bargainable issue, and (2) that, inasmuch as no final collective bargaining agreement had been reached, to raise the question of signing a contract was premature. As the Board said, "an employer violates the good faith requirement of the collective bargaining mandate when, throughout the negotiations, he persistently takes the position that he will not enter into a signed agreement." See, e. g., H. J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 525-526, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309; Art Metals Construction Co. v. N.L.R.B., 2 Cir., 110 F.2d 148, 150; N.L.R.B. v. Register Publishing Co., 9 Cir., 141 F.2d 156, 160. Since the company's absolute and unyielding "principle" was at variance with the obligations imposed on it by the Act, the Board's order that it cease and desist was proper. The moral is that "hard-and-fast lines ever cut the fingers of those who draw them".2

As the evidence amply supports the finding that the union did not waive its right to a signed contract, there is no need to consider the legal consequences of such a waiver. We think the evidence also sufficiently supports the finding that the company "additionally interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 29 U.S.C.A. § 157."3

The Board had discretion, which it did not abuse, to deny the intervening petition filed on January 7, 1947, by a majority of the employees. Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 702, 704-705, 64 S. Ct. 817, 88 L.Ed. 1020; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Kalamazoo City Ed. Ass'n v. Kalamazoo Public Schools
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 24, 1979
    ...and did not. It is not now in a position to object. NLRB v. Andrew Jergens Co., 175 F.2d 130, 134 (CA 9, 1949); NLRB v. Todd Co., Inc., 173 F.2d 705, 708 (CA 2, 1949). Second, while delay will not normally affect enforcement, defendant's claim of change in circumstances may well do so. It i......
  • NLRB v. Mayes Bros., Incorporated
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 22, 1967
    ...514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309; N. L. R. B. v. Berkley Mach. Works & Foundry Co., 4 Cir. 1951, 189 F.2d 904, 909-910; N. L. R. B. v. Todd Co., 2 Cir. 1949, 173 F.2d 705, cert. denied, 1950, 340 U.S. 864, 71 S.Ct. 87, 95 L.Ed. 631; Sears Roebuck & Co., 1962, 139 N.L.R.B. 471; James C. Ellis......
  • St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 v. Herald Company
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
    • October 13, 1967
    ...Union representatives must have known that whether a contract should be signed is not a bargainable issue. National Labor Relations Board v. Todd Co., 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 705, 707. We find that no agreement was entered into which obligated Globe-Democrat to pay pensions to the Union's members ......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Andrew Jergens Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 24, 1949
    ...Board v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., 4 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 813; National Labor Relations Board v. Todd Co., 2 Cir., 1949. 173 F.2d 705. In its answer to the Board's petition for enforcement of its order, respondent alleges that since prior to January 1, 1948, none of its employees ......
  • 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