NLRB v. Dale Industries, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 16286.,16286. |
| Citation | 355 F.2d 851 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. DALE INDUSTRIES, INC., and Wyoming Service Company, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Peter Giesey, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for petitioner, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Gary Green, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on the brief.
David M. Fried, Detroit, Mich., for respondents, Lampert & Fried, Detroit, Mich., of counsel.
Before CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge, McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge, and KENT, District Judge*.
The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its orders against Respondents, Dale Industries, Inc. and Wyoming Service Company, here regarded as a single employer and hereinafter referred to as Respondents. The Board found that Respondents violated Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by threatening reprisals against employees for joining the United Industrial Workers of America, Local 286, and by interrogating employees concerning the extent of Union organization in the Respondents' plant. The Board also found that Respondents violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily reducing the hours of work of four Union adherents1, and later by discharging two of these employees2. 29 U.S.C., Section 158(a) (1), and (a) (3). The Board's decision and orders are reported at 145 N.L.R.B., No. 108.
Respondents are Michigan corporations located in Detroit. Respondent Dale Industries, Inc., manufactures and sells metal moldings, gutters, roofing edges, and related building products. Respondent Wyoming Service, Inc., supplies Dale Industries with manpower.
In mid December, 1962, two Union organizers regularly came to the Respondents' plant and solicited membership of all the employees of Respondents. This solicitation occurred outside the plant and was observed by the Respondents. With several exceptions, all twenty employees of the Respondents signed Union cards during this December solicitation.
In January, 1963, two employees, Frailand and Brostean, asked Albert Fruman, President of Dale Industries, Inc., if they had to join a Union. Fruman answered, "no, you don't have to join a Union if you don't want to." A third employee, Fisher, asked President Fruman if he would lose his job if he signed up with the Union, and Fruman answered, "no, go on back to work". In mid January, 1963, employee Mance was asked if he signed a Union card. Mance was later told by his supervisor that he would "lease his trucks out" if the Union came in, and the "Union shop would be run by the books". This conversation took place when his supervisor called Mance to his office to talk about Mance's work attitude. On January 28, 1963, employee Landers asked President Fruman for a ten dollar loan. Fruman objected to lending Landers any money and then told Landers that he was one of the ringleaders of the Union and that he should go to his "Union buddies" for the loan. Fruman then asked employee Ingram to loan ten dollars to Landers. Ingram refused, saying Landers' credit was no good. No statements concerning the Union were made to employees Ford or Ingram.
On the basis of these statements, the Board found that the Respondents violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The National Labor Relations Act specifically provides that the expression of any views shall not be evidence of an unfair labor practice if such expressions contain no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. 29 U.S.C., Section 158(c). Interrogation regarding Union activity does not in and of itself violate the Act. There must be an over-all pattern to restrain or coerce. National Labor Relations Board v. Tennessee Coach Co., 191 F.2d 546 (C.A.6, 1951); Lincoln Bearing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 F.2d 48 (C.A.6, 1962).
Considering the entire record, we are of the opinion that the above comments were made in the exercise of free speech, and that any illegal purpose was so minimal that Section 8(a) (1) of the Act was not violated.
On January 28, 1963, the work week of employees Landers, Ford, Ingram and Mance was reduced to three days a week. While Landers worked in several departments, his principal job was working in the gutter department. Prior to his partial lay-off, he had been told his work on the slitting machine was not satisfactory. Ford worked in the valley department. Ingram worked in the slitter, unloaded trucks, and swept the floors. His principal job was as a porter, sweeping floors. Mance was a truck driver, operated the hi-lo and worked in the gutter room. Mance came late to work at least once a week during the several months prior to his partial lay-off. In the first week of January he damaged a hi-lo machine.
In December, 1962, shipping had fallen off 25½% over the previous five months, and in January, 1963, shipping had fallen off 53% over the previous five months. Also, a year's stockpile of "valleys" was on hand. It was for these reasons, Respondents maintain, that the work week of Landers, Ford, Ingram and Mance was reduced. Respondents' plant was not run on a seniority basis. There were other men whose work week was not reduced who had less seniority than the above four whose work week was reduced. After the reduction, other employees were hired. After two weeks, the new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. Homemaker Shops, Inc.
...an unfair labor practice. Questioning or interrogation of employees by the employer is not per se unlawful. N.L.R.B. v. Dale Industries, 355 F.2d 851, 852-53 (6th Cir.1966). Instead, one must look to all the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the interrogation reasonably tended ......
-
Charter Commc'ns, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
...employer is not per se unlawful." N.L.R.B. v. Homemaker Shops, Inc. , 724 F.2d 535, 548 (6th Cir. 1984) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Dale Indus. , 355 F.2d 851, 852–53 (6th Cir. 1966) ). Homemaker Shops makes clear that "[i]nfrequent, isolated and innocuous inquiries of a relatively small number of ......
-
Hughes & Hatcher, Inc. v. NLRB
...not all interrogation is illegal under the Act.4 The Jervis Corp. v. NLRB, 387 F.2d 107, 111 (6th Cir. 1967); NLRB v. Dale Industries, Inc., 355 F.2d 851, 852 (6th Cir. 1966); NLRB v. Flemingsburg Mfg. Co., 300 F.2d 182, 184 (6th Cir. 1962); NLRB v. Tennessee Coach Co., 191 F.2d 546, 555 (6......
-
Jervis Corporation, Bolivar Division v. NLRB
...to interrogation of employees, we start with the premise that not all interrogation is illegal under the Act. NLRB v. Dale Industries, Inc., 355 F.2d 851, 852 (6th Cir. 1966); NLRB v. Flemingsburg Mfg. Co., 300 F.2d 182, 184 (6th Cir. 1962); NLRB v. Tennessee Coach Co., 191 F.2d 546, 555 (6......
-
Law, Fact, and the Threat of Reversal From Above
...No325 F.2d 126 Yes No326 F.2d 488 Yes No331 F.2d 165 Yes No336 F.2d 115 Yes No336 F.2d 942 Yes Yes344 F.2d 47 No Yes351 F.2d 771 Yes Yes355 F.2d 851 Yes No360 F.2d 856 No Yes361 F.2d 300 Yes No365 F.2d 515 Yes No369 F.2d 495 Yes Yes375 F.2d 707 Yes No376 F.2d 131 Yes No379 F.2d 536 Yes No37......