NLRB v. Cosco Products Company, 18117.

• Decision Date: 13 September 1960
• Docket Number: No. 18117.,18117.
• Citation: 280 F.2d 905
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. COSCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

280 F.2d 905 (1960)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. COSCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 18117.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 30, 1960.

Petition for Modification of Opinion Denied September 13, 1960.

James C. Paras, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Melvin J. Welles, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Theo. Hamilton, Hamilton & Bowden, Jacksonville, Fla., for respondent.

Before HUTCHESON, JONES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

This matter is here upon the petition of the Labor Board for enforcement of its decision and order,¹ 123 N.L.R.B., 91, issued April 16, 1955.

The respondent, insisting that the board has not sustained its statutory burden of proof to establish, by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, the unfair labor practices of which it found respondent guilty, urges upon us that enforcement of the order should be denied.

We agree. While the hearing dragged out to an inordinate length, due, in part to the examiner's apparent misunderstanding of his independent function as an impartial trier, his active and partisan participation in the hearing, therefore, as an examiner and cross-examiner of witnesses,² in part to the fact that most of the employee witnesses were uneducated, indeed illiterate, and in part to the misunderstanding by examiner and counsel of what was relevant and what was not, and the completely wasteful consumption of time, therefore, in putting on wholly irrelevant testimony, such as interrogating at length Platt, union organizer, and the board's employee witnesses as to what they thought the company meant by its promulgated rules, the real case³ was in comparatively small compass.

As a result of such a trial so conducted, it was inevitable that the examiner's intermediate report would be a lengthy argumentative apologia of nearly 100 printed pages, written in the spirit and couched in the language not of adjudication but of advocacy. N. L. R. B. v. Ray Transport Smith Co., 5 Cir., 193 F.2d 142. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. National Paper Co., 5 Cir., 216 F.2d 859. Unable to approve it, the board adopted "the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the trial examiner only to the extent that they are consistent herewith", and stating: (1) "We find, in agreement with the trial examiner that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Sec. 8(a) (1) of the Act.", it added: "However, in so finding, we rely only upon the following actions by the respondent." (setting them out).

Further stating: "(2) We find, in agreement with the trial examiner, and for the reasons given by him, that the respondent discriminatorily discharged employee Vandergriff * * * constructively discharged Oscar B. Wilcox * * discriminatorily discharged Tom Gibbons * * *", it also stated: "(3) We find, in agreement with the trial examiner and for the reasons given by him, that the respondent refused to bargain * * by its admitted insistence as a condition to entering into a contract, that the certified union, and the International * * * post a $100,000 performance bond, or in lieu thereof, that the International also sign the contract."; and that "respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) by its refusal to honor the union's request for wages and personnel data."; and further "that the respondent on and after February 5, 1958, failed to bargain in good faith * * *."

As a preliminary to stating our reasons for refusing enforcement of the board's order, we think we cannot state too strongly: that the real, the relevant facts, on which the determination of this matter rests, are not complicated and, generally speaking, are not seriously in dispute; and that, where there are disputes, the wholesale resolution by the examiner in favor of the board's witnesses and the board's equally wholesale adoption of this resolution in a note to its opinion are as injudicious as they are unjudicial, as indefensible as they are surprising.

Dealing with the board's findings in the order above stated, we begin by saying, of the items (a) to (f) in its Finding No. 1, purporting to be statements made to employees by Altman, Runyon and King: that, if accepted as occurring as found by the board, they are not unfair labor practices; that they are within the ambit of the protection of the the right of free speech; and that the finding by the board, that they are unfair labor practices, is in direct violation of Section 158(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(c):

"The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this subchapter, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit."⁴

Of the findings, that on Oct. 1, the respondent committed an unfair labor practice, "g" by issuing a set of working rules, and "h" by tightening up its policy with respect to making personal loans, it is, we think sufficient to say that it is difficult to understand how it could be an unfair labor practice for the company to make and issue working rules such as those issued in this case, and that it is even more difficult to understand how the board could make and support "the petty and trivial charge" that in respect of its handling of personal loans to its employees, which it was not obligated to make and made only as an accommodation, the respondent had committed an unfair labor practice. N. L. R. B. v. Peerless Products, Inc., 7 Cir., 264 F.2d 769, 770. In addition, the evidence does not support the findings as a matter of fact because the uncontradicted evidence of management shows that the rules were no different from what they had been except that they were put in writing, and that, because they had not been in writing, the employees, because of the laxity in enforcement, had been loafing and indulging in horse play and "shooting craps" on working time; and that the real complaint of the charges after the rules were posted was that the employees used to shoot dice, and that they had been stopped from shooting dice, washing up before before quitting time, and things like that, and had been made to quit playing and pushing and such horse play during working hours.

As to finding "i", there is nothing in the record which at all supports the view that the giving of the raises constituted unfair labor practices. On the contrary, the raises were given to nearly all the employees, wholly without discrimination as to whether they were for or against the union, and there can be no reasonable basis for the claim that they constituted an unfair labor practice.

As to finding "j", that on September 25, respondent disciplined employee Wilcox by demoting him from his regular job and transferring him to irregular work, and that this was done in reprisal for his sympathy with, and testimony in favor of, the union, the record may be searched in vain for evidence to support this finding. In the first place, there is no evidence except Wilcox's complaint that he was demoted or otherwise discriminated against, and in the second place, there is no evidence whatever that what was done with respect to him was done because of his union activity. Here again surmise and suspicion have been made to take the place of proof.

Of finding No. 2, the discharges of Vandergriff and Gibbons, it is sufficient to say that, upon the evidence as a whole, the finding, that Vandergriff and Gibbons were discharged not for the causes assigned but for union activity, is absolutely without support in the record considered as a whole, and that the board's order for reinstatement in these cases is in direct violation of the statutory prohibition against reinstating employees who have been discharged for cause. In the first place, there is no evidence whatever that, when the discharge of Vandergriff occurred in July, Altman knew that he was an active promoter of the union or had anything to do with it, none that he was not guilty of the faults for which he was discharged, and Altman having testified directly and positively to the reasons for his discharge and also that he did not know of Vandergriff's union activity, the board could not, upon nothing but the fact that Vandergriff was interested in the union and suspicion and surmise, reject Altman's uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony. N. L. R. B. v. Ingram, 5 Cir., 273 F.2d 670; N. L. R. B. v. Fox Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 238 F.2d 211, 212; N. L. R. B. v. McGahey, supra; N. L. R. B. v. Ray Smith Transit Co., 5 Cir., 193 F.2d 142; N. L. R. B. v. Allure Shoe Co., 277 F.2d 231, and cases cited. Cf. Georgia Pacific Corp. v. United States, 5 Cir., 264 F.2d 161, and cases cited in note 4.

As to Tom Gibbons, there is no evidence that he was discharged because he gave testimony under the Act, and the evidence that he was insubordinate and profane is uncontradicted, except by his contrary statement, where as the testimony of Altman is confirmed by Monk Frost, and no one who had an opportunity to hear what was said in the final talk between Altman and Gibbons, except Gibbons, denied Altman's testimony that he did make profane statements and that he was fired for them. Gibbons, himself, admits that he spoke to Altman in a very impudent manner, in a manner strongly reminiscent of the action of the discharged employees in N. L. R. B. v. Williamson-Dickie Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 130 F.2d 260; and N. L. R. B. v. Times Ticayune, 5 Cir., 130 F.2d 257. He testified: "I said, `You all been getting nasty around here since we came down to this hearing', and he told me, he said, `You're fired'."

In these circumstances,...