NLRB v. Bendix Corporation (Research Lab. Div.), 14647.

Decision Date20 February 1962
Docket NumberNo. 14647.,14647.
Citation299 F.2d 308
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. The BENDIX CORPORATION (RESEARCH LABORATORIES DIVISION), Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Stephen B. Goldberg, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C. (Stuart R. Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Stephen B. Goldberg, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Allen S. Hubbard, Jr., New York City, (Hughes, Hubbard, Blair & Reed, New York City, Jeremy Shamos, New York City, on the brief), for respondent.

Before MILLER, Chief Judge, and McALLISTER and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.

SHACKELFORD MILLER, Jr., Chief Judge.

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order of May 18, 1961, directing the respondent, The Bendix Corporation, Research Laboratories Division, to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices found by it to exist in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1), to reinstate an employee, Harold L. Hunt, found by the Board to have been discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act, to make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of such discharge, and to post appropriate notices.

The Trial Examiner found, which the Board adopted, that the interrogation by respondent's Personnel Director of Respondent's employees concerning their union membership and desires, and the implied promises of benefit and threat of reprisal contained therein constituted interference, restraint and coercion of the employees' rights guaranteed by the Act and constituted unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. This finding is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, and is accepted by us. National Labor Relations Board v. Ford, 170 F.2d 735, 738, C.A.6th; United Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 252 F.2d 428, C.A.6th; National Labor Relations Board v. Beatrice Foods Co., 183 F.2d 726, 728, C.A. 10th.

The circumstances immediately preceding the discharge of employee Hunt are as follows: Hunt was operating a Xerox Processor, a machine used to produce a "master" of written or printed material from which copies can be made on an offset press. In an operation known as "cascading," a metal "tone" tray is removed from the machine, attached by pivot pins welded to its sides to an extension arm of the machine, and agitated to distribute the tone evenly. While Hunt was "cascading" a tray a pivot pin pulled away from the side of the tray. What occurred immediately thereafter is in dispute under the evidence, except that about five minutes before quitting time that day, Personnel Director Capsalis called Hunt to his office and discharged Hunt for "wilful destruction of company property."

Hunt was one of the four rank-and-file employees in the reproduction unit who signed a union authorization card and who told the Personnel Director that he favored representation by the Union. The Board contends that in view of respondent's hostility to unionization and its knowledge of Hunt's adherence to the Union, it could properly infer that respondent's real reason for discharging Hunt was to discourage its other employees from continuing in their adherence to the Union by making an example of him. National Labor Relations Board v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U.S. 584, 602, 61 S.Ct. 358, 85 L.Ed. 368; National Labor Relations Board v. Ford, supra, 170 F.2d 735, 739, C.A.6th.

On the other hand, respondent's evidence was that Hunt was a careless and inefficient worker, that three pieces of equipment had been previously broken while he was handling them, that he had been cautioned twice about his work...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Local Union No. 948, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, (IBEW), AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 27, 1982
    ...v. Nelson Mfg. Co., 326 F.2d 397, 398 (6th Cir.1964); NLRB v. Interurban Gas Corp., 317 F.2d 724, 725 (6th Cir.1963); N.L.R.B. v. Bendix Corp., 299 F.2d 308, 310 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 827, 83 S.Ct. 47, 9 L.Ed.2d 65 (1962). See NLRB v. Fredrick's Foodland, Inc., 655 F.2d 88, 89 ......
  • NLRB v. Challenge-Cook Brothers of Ohio, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • March 2, 1967
    ...U.S. 934, 84 S.Ct. 1337, 12 L.Ed. 2d 297; N. L. R. B. v. Herman Bros. Pet Supply, Inc., 325 F.2d 68 (C.A. 6); N. L. R. B. v. Bendix Corporation (Research Lab. Div.), 299 F.2d 308 (C.A. 6), cert. den. 371 U.S. 827, 83 S.Ct. 47, 9 L.Ed.2d 65. If facts are open to conflicting inferences, we ar......
  • Marshfield Steel Company v. NLRB
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 20, 1963
    ...Little Rock, Inc., supra; N. L. R. B. v. Griggs Equipment Co., Inc., 5 Cir., 1962, 307 F.2d 275; N. L. R. B. v. Bendix Corporation (Research Laboratory Division), 6 Cir., 1962, 299 F.2d 308, certiorari denied, 371 U.S. 827, 83 S.Ct. 47, 9 L.Ed.2d 65; N. L. R. B. v. Solo Cup Co., 8 Cir., 195......
  • Standard Oil Company v. NLRB
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 29, 1963
    ...N. L. R. B. v. Ford, 170 F.2d 735, 739, C.A.6; Old King Cole v. N. L. R. B., 250 F.2d 791, 792, C.A.6; N. L. R. B. v. Bendix Corp. (Research Laboratories Div.), 299 F.2d 308, 310, C.A.6, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 827, 83 S.Ct. 47, 9 L.Ed.2d 65; N. L. R. B. v. Flemingsburg Mfg. Co., 300 F.2d 18......
  • 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