NLRB v. Colvert Dairy Products Company, No. 7090.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBRATTON, LEWIS and HILL, Circuit
Citation317 F.2d 44
Decision Date12 June 1963
Docket NumberNo. 7090.
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. COLVERT DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, Respondent.

317 F.2d 44 (1963)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
COLVERT DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 7090.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

May 7, 1963.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1963.


Melvin J. Welles, Washington, D. C. (Stuart Rothman, Dominick L. Manoli, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, James C. Paras and Glen M. Bendixsen, Washington, D.

317 F.2d 45
C., were with him on the brief), for petitioner

Edward E. Soule, Oklahoma City (Louis A. Fischl, Ardmore, Okl., was with him on the brief), for respondent.

Before BRATTON, LEWIS and HILL, Circuit Judges.

LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

The National Labor Relations Board petitions this court under Sec. 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 160(e), for enforcement of its order of April 25, 1962, directing respondent to cease and desist from certain designated activities and requiring the usual affirmative requirements of posting. The order also carries a provision setting aside an election held August 2, 1961, and a remand of this aspect of the proceeding to Regional Director for the purpose of conducting a new election.

In issuing its order the Board adopted the findings and recommendations of the trial examiner who concluded that respondent had illegally affected the result of an election in violation of Sec. 8(a) (1) of the Act by coercive questioning of its employees and by the prohibited use of photographic equipment in pre-election activities. The respondent resists enforcement, asserting that the Board committed fundamental error in its consideration of the evidence; that the evidence is insufficient to premise findings of violation of Sec. 8(a) (1); and that the order of the Board requiring a new election should be set aside and declared void.

The proceedings before the Board were a consolidation of two cases, separately docketed and numbered. Case No. 16-CA-1532 charged respondent with committing unfair labor practices in its pre-election activities; Case No. 16-RC-2910 petitioned the Board to set aside the August 2, 1961, election. Since the same evidence was pertinent to the issues of both cases the matters were consolidated for hearing. The Board's present petition seeks enforcement of its order only as to the issues presented in Case No. 16-CA-1532. This court consequently lacks present jurisdiction to give consideration to respondent's contention that the Board erred in setting aside the results of the August 2 election and directing that a new election be held. And, for reasons that will become apparent, we do not give consideration to respondent's assertion that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the Board's findings that respondent committed unfair labor practices as charged and found in Case No. 16-RC-2910.

Early in 1961, Local 670 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, began a campaign to organize some 100 production and maintenance employees working at respondent's milk processing and distribution plant at Ardmore, Oklahoma. On April 25, 1961, having complied with required procedures, the union petitioned for a Board election and a date was set. Thereupon both respondent and the union engaged in extensive activities intended to influence the employees in the exercise of their votes. On May 31, July 18, and July 31, respondent's general manager read to the assembled employees prepared statements expressing management's opinion regarding the union's attempt to organize the plant. In the trial examiner's evidentiary findings, adopted in toto by the Board, the examiner...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Lenkurt Electric Co., Inc., (1968)
    • United States
    • 19 Febrero 1968
    ...Employees have as clear a right toorganize and select their representatives for lawful pur-54N.L.R.B. v Colvert Dairy Products Co,317 F 2d 44,46 (C.A. 10).55N.L.R.B. v. Popeil Brothers, Inc, 216 F.2d 66, 68 (C.A 7)56Stafford Trucking Inc.,154 NLRB 1309, 1310.See Arch BeverageCorporation,140......
  • Darlington Manufacturing Company v. NLRB, No. 11554.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 31 Mayo 1968
    ...S.Ct. 510, 17 L.Ed.2d 436 (1966); Hendrix Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 321 F.2d 100, 103 (5th Cir. 1963). But cf. NLRB v. Colvert Dairy Products Co., 317 F.2d 44 (10th Cir. 1963); NLRB v. Rockwell Mfg. Co., 271 F.2d 109 (3rd Cir. 1959), where protected statements could not be used to appraise the cred......
  • Hendrix Manufacturing Company v. NLRB, No. 20125.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 24 Julio 1963
    ...We do not regard this as a left-handed finding that Trippe's statement was illegal. Cf. NLRB v. Colvert Dairy Products Co., 10 Cir., 1963, 317 F.2d 44. Of course the purpose of the speech, as was quite proper, was to state management's reasons why a union was not needed and why it hoped the......
  • Daniel Construction Company v. NLRB, No. 9347
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 7 Enero 1965
    ...128 (5 Cir. 1964); Salinas Valley Broadcasting Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 334 F.2d 604 (9 Cir. 1964); N. L. R. B. v. Calvert Dairy Prods. Co., 317 F.2d 44 (10 Cir. 1963); Lincoln Bearing Co. v. N. L. R. B., 311 F.2d 48 (6 Cir. Typical of the unwarrantable inflation by the Board of its powers is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Lenkurt Electric Co., Inc., (1968)
    • United States
    • 19 Febrero 1968
    ...Employees have as clear a right toorganize and select their representatives for lawful pur-54N.L.R.B. v Colvert Dairy Products Co,317 F 2d 44,46 (C.A. 10).55N.L.R.B. v. Popeil Brothers, Inc, 216 F.2d 66, 68 (C.A 7)56Stafford Trucking Inc.,154 NLRB 1309, 1310.See Arch BeverageCorporation,140......
  • Darlington Manufacturing Company v. NLRB, No. 11554.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 31 Mayo 1968
    ...S.Ct. 510, 17 L.Ed.2d 436 (1966); Hendrix Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 321 F.2d 100, 103 (5th Cir. 1963). But cf. NLRB v. Colvert Dairy Products Co., 317 F.2d 44 (10th Cir. 1963); NLRB v. Rockwell Mfg. Co., 271 F.2d 109 (3rd Cir. 1959), where protected statements could not be used to appraise the cred......
  • Hendrix Manufacturing Company v. NLRB, No. 20125.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 24 Julio 1963
    ...We do not regard this as a left-handed finding that Trippe's statement was illegal. Cf. NLRB v. Colvert Dairy Products Co., 10 Cir., 1963, 317 F.2d 44. Of course the purpose of the speech, as was quite proper, was to state management's reasons why a union was not needed and why it hoped the......
  • Daniel Construction Company v. NLRB, No. 9347
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 7 Enero 1965
    ...128 (5 Cir. 1964); Salinas Valley Broadcasting Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 334 F.2d 604 (9 Cir. 1964); N. L. R. B. v. Calvert Dairy Prods. Co., 317 F.2d 44 (10 Cir. 1963); Lincoln Bearing Co. v. N. L. R. B., 311 F.2d 48 (6 Cir. Typical of the unwarrantable inflation by the Board of its powers is ......
  • 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