NLRB v. Durant Sportswear, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 22077.,22077. |
| Citation | 358 F.2d 729 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. DURANT SPORTSWEAR, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Richard S. Rodin, Atty., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Stephen B. Goldberg, Martin R. Ganzglass, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
C. Dale Stout, Kullman & Lang, New Orleans, La., for respondent.
Before BROWN, BURGER,* and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
The Board seeks enforcement of its order finding the Employer guilty of § 8 (a) (1) interference and § 8(a) (3) discriminatory discharge of Employee Ann Otts.
Once the testimony is credited that the asserted inquiries were made and the words were spoken by those having the voice of management, N. L. R. B. v. Ferguson, 5 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 88, the § 8(a) (1) violations are flagrant. More than that, discriminatee Otts was either the object — or at least a bystander participant — of several of the coercive exchanges of such supervisors as Harris and Reed.
In this setting of coercive conduct which "broke every rule in the book," N. L. R. B. v. American Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 1965, 351 F.2d 74, 78, such "anti union bias and demonstrated unlawful hostility" were "proper and highly significant factors for Board evaluation in determining motive," N. L. R. B. v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 5 Cir., 1960, 274 F.2d 381, 384. And so, too, as to the knowledge by top management directing the discharge that Ann Otts was a strong union adherent. These inferences were strengthened by the complete absence of any factual basis for the reason assigned for the discharge of Ann Otts. Whatever doubts or anxieties there might have been on Wednesday, August 7, concerning her absence from work and its operational consequences in the short-handed shipping department, it was known to a certainty at the time of discharge on Friday, the 9th, that she had properly reported her absence due to illness, she had consulted a doctor late on the 7th, and the doctor had certified her illness.
Order enforced.
* Of the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chromalloy Min. and Minerals Alaska Div., Chromalloy American Corp. v. N.L.R.B.
...'proper and highly significant factors for Board evaluation in determining motive' (for employee discharges)". NLRB v. Durant Sportswear, Inc., 5 Cir. 1966, 358 F.2d 729, 730. The Board did not abuse its discretion by rejecting evidence that Moore was not rehired because of his work at Kena......
-
Southern Tours, Inc. v. NLRB
...Markets, Inc., 5th Cir. 1967, 374 F.2d 197, 200; NLRB v. Brennan's Inc., 5th Cir. 1966, 366 F.2d 560, 564; NLRB v. Durant Sportswear, Inc., 5th Cir. 1966, 358 F.2d 729, 730; NLRB v. Plant City Steel Corp., 5th Cir. 1964, 331 F.2d 511, There was evidence in the record that Shouppe knew Hutch......
-
Raabe v. Florida East Coast Railway Company
...has not discussed the issue, but many times has enforced awards containing prejudgment interest. See, e. g., N. L. R. B. v. Durant Sportswear, Inc., 358 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1966), enforcing 147 N.L.R.B. 906, 920 Although these decisions have merely held that the N.L.R.B. has the authority to......
- Cornelio v. METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY OF UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, …, 15596.