National Labor Relations Board v. Kennametal, Inc., 10113.

• Decision Date: 24 May 1950
• Docket Number: No. 10113.,10113.
• Citation: 182 F.2d 817
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. KENNAMETAL, Inc.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

182 F.2d 817 (1950)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. KENNAMETAL, Inc.

No. 10113.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 5, 1950.

May 24, 1950.

Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D. C. (David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Thomas McDermott, National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

William B. Paul, Pittsburgh, Pa. (John C. Hill, Paul, Lawrence & Wills, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for respondent.

Before MARIS, GOODRICH and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.

This petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board presents the question whether a single spontaneous brief work stoppage inspired by wage grievances is an activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq.¹

The facts were found by the Board and are not disputed. The respondent operates a plant at Latrobe, Pennsylvania. At the close of the war it discharged half of its employees and in effect reduced the wages of the remainder by downgrading them to lower paying jobs. The result was general dissatisfaction among the employees, who at the date of the events herein relevant were not unionized or represented by any formal collective bargaining agency. On January 31, 1947, seven or eight employees were gathered around a water fountain during working hours discussing a wage increase which had reportedly been won after a strike at a neighboring plant. Some one suggested that the group should immediately present its wage grievances to Philip McKenna, respondent's president. As the men headed toward the executive offices, their number swelled to approximately 100. In the office area, the men were ordered by the assistant plant superintendent to return to work at once. When they refused, the employees were told to proceed to the company cafeteria, where McKenna would speak to them.

Four days after the meeting in the cafeteria, respondent's officers decided to discharge Walter E. Saxton, Paul Bengel, Evan A. Lloyd and Kelley Hurd. The Board found, and respondent frankly concedes, that it was decided to dismiss the four men because they were the leaders in the work stoppage. The men involved were not told of the decision until a week after it had been made because it was feared that an earlier disclosure would embarrass a pending meeting between management and employee representatives chosen at the cafeteria session. Hurd, one of the four scheduled for discharge, was reinstated.

The Board found that respondent had committed unfair labor practices as defined in Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 158(a) (1), 158(a) (3), and ordered reinstatement of the three discharged men with back pay. 80 N.L.R.B. 1481 (1948).

Section 8(a) (3) of the Act proscribes discriminatory discharges whose aim is the discouragement of membership in "any labor organization."² Respondent says that the group activity described above was not that of a labor organization and that it therefore could not have violated Section 8(a) (3). This argument is interesting but it crumbles when put against the broad language used in the statute in defining the term.³ It seems perfectly clear to us that the employees who informally joined together to present their grievances in this case fall well within the statutory definition. We therefore agree with the Board that Section 8(a) (3) of the Act has been violated.

The Board also concluded that Section 8(a) (1)⁴ of the Act had been violated. The respondent argues that the employees' conduct here was not of the sort protected by the statute. We disagree. What occurred in this case was certainly a concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining, the kind of activity which is expressly protected by Section 7 of the Act.⁵ That the employees suddenly dropped their tools and insisted upon presenting their grievances during working hours does not detract from the lawfulness of their conduct. Certainly the statute would have protected them against interference or coercion if instead of insisting upon immediate discussion of their demands they had then and there left the plant and formed a picket line outside. In fact, what the workmen did was more reasonable and less productive of loss to all concerned than an outright strike.

The language of the Act does not require and its purposes would not be served by holding that dissatisfied workmen may receive its protection only if they exert the maximum economic pressure and call a strike. Our conclusion that a spontaneous work stoppage like this one is protected by the Act is in accord with Gullett Gin Co. v. N.L.R.B., 5 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 499; Carter Carburetor Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 1940, 140 F.2d 714, 717-718.

The employer relies upon two decisions to support his contention that the employee activity here is not sanctioned by the Act. We think, however, that neither is apposite. One of them, International Union, U.A. W., A. F. of L., Local 232, v. Wisconsin...