NLRB v. Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 16068.
Citation | 351 F.2d 917 |
Decision Date | 26 October 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 16068.,16068. |
Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CUMBERLAND SHOE CORPORATION, Respondent. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Melvin H. Reifin, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Elliott Moore, Attorney, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on brief, for petitioner.
William M. Pate, Atlanta, Ga., George B. Smith, Atlanta, Ga., on brief; Mitchell, Clarke, Pate & Anderson, Atlanta, Ga., Constangy & Prowell, Atlanta, Ga., of counsel, for respondent.
Before MILLER, O'SULLIVAN and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.
This is a National Labor Relations Board petition for enforcement of an order to respondent to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices and from refusing to bargain collectively with the union1 as the representative of its employees.
As to the cease and desist order, respondent's brief states:
Since respondent does not oppose enforcement of the cease and desist order concerning 8(a) (1) violations, we shall not detail our views thereon, except to note that the record taken as a whole does contain substantial evidence to support the Board's findings of such violations.
The basic issue presented by this case concerns whether or not respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with the union after it had demonstrated majority status.
In January of 1963 the union began an organizing campaign in respondent's plant at Chapel Hill, Tennessee. By January 17, 1963, 81 out of 143 employees had signed an authorization card reading as follows:
By letter dated January 18, 1963, the union notified the respondent that a majority of its production and maintenance workers had designated it as their collective bargaining representative, offered to agree to a card check by an impartial person, and requested recognition and negotiations.
The company responded by letter indicating that it did not believe the union had a majority of its employees who had joined "freely and without coercion," and refusing to recognize or bargain with the union. Respondent's position is that "Seventeen of these cards were solicited by fellow employees through statements that the purpose of the cards was to secure a Board election."
This issue was the subject of extensive testimony before the Trial Examiner. He found that 17 of the 81 employees claimed to constitute the union majority "were told when they were solicited by fellow employees that the purpose of the cards was to secure an election." Relying upon a somewhat similar factual situation where oral representations had been held to invalidate the written authorizations (Englewood Lumber Company, 130 N.L.R.B. 394 (1961)), the Trial Examiner found that the 17 cards were invalid and that as a consequence the union did not represent a majority when it demanded recognition and bargaining.
On review of the Rulings of the Trial Examiner (to which both respondent and the general counsel had filed exceptions), the Board found:
The Board also found:
Respondent in this case relies principally upon two cases: Englewood Lumber Company, 130 N.L.R.B. 394 (1961) and N. L. R. B. v. Koehler, 328 F.2d 770 (C.A.7, 1964). We are convinced that the factual situation in each of these cases was materially different from that posed by our instant case.
In the Englewood case the Trial Examiner and the Board placed much emphasis upon the fact that one of the solicitors of the union authorization cards testified that he secured cards from persons expressing hostility to the union. He said that they signed only after he assured them that the purpose was to secure an election where they could vote either way.
In the Koehler case the court relied upon this testimony:
"Thus Simons testified he told the employees that by signing the cards they were not selecting the Teamsters as their bargaining agent, that they would have a chance to vote at a secret election, and that they could vote for the Teamsters Union or against it." N. L. R. B. v. Koehler, supra at 773.
In our present case we find no claim of outright misrepresentation on the part of any solicitor. The authorization cards were themselves wholly unambiguous and they related solely to authorization of union representation as collective bargaining representative.
The record does disclose, of course, that 17 employees testified generally to the effect that they had been told that the purpose was to have an election. But, of course, the signing of authorization cards was an essential...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harry Carian Sales v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...their support for the UFW," the Board relied to some extent on N.L.R.B. v. Cumberland Shoe Corp. (1963) 144 NLRB 1268 , enforced (6th Cir.1965) 351 F.2d 917. Under the Cumberland Shoe doctrine, "if the card itself is unambiguous (i.e., states on its face that the signer authorizes the Union......
-
NLRB v. Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co.
...towards the establishment of a union majority. Happach v. National Labor Relations Board, supra; National Labor Relations Board v. Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 351 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965); see National Labor Relations Board v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750, 754-755 (6th Cir. 1965);......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Weingarten, Inc 8212 1363
...§ 160(l). See also Congoleum Industries, Inc., 197 N.L.R.B. 534 (1972); Cumberland Shoe Corp., 144 N.L.R.B. 1268 (1963), enforced, 351 F.2d 917 (CA6 1965). The key objective fact in this case is that the only exception to the requirement in the collective-bargaining agreement that the emplo......
-
NLRB v. KAISER AGR. CHEM., DIV. OF KAISER A. & CO. CORP.
...Enforced. 1 The company does not contend that the cards were ambiguous or misleading. See Cumberland Shoe Corp., 1964, enforced, 6 Cir. 1965, 351 F.2d 917; NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 1969, 395 U.S. 575, 606-608, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 1936, 23 L.Ed.2d 547; NLRB v. American Cable Systems, 5 Cir., 1......
-
NLRB Weakens Secret-Ballot Elections In Union Campaigns, Increasing Unionization Perils
...58 (Feb. 21, 2023) (severance agreements). 9 See Gissel, 395 U.S. at 607. 10 See, e.g., Cumberland Shoe Corp., 144 NLRB 1268 (1963), enfd. 351 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 11 See Robert Iafolla, Trader Joe's Union Seeks Bargaining Order Under New NLRB Ruling, Bloomberg Law (Aug. 28, 2023) https://new......