NLRB v. Elias Brothers Restaurants, Inc., 73-1943.

Decision Date29 May 1974
Docket NumberNo. 73-1943.,73-1943.
Citation496 F.2d 1165
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. ELIAS BROTHERS RESTAURANTS, INC., Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, William Wachter, Elinor Hadley Stillman, Attys., National Labor Relations Board Washington, D. C., on brief, for petitioner.

John Katsoulos, Huntington Woods, Mich., on brief, for respondent.

Before CELEBREZZE, LIVELY and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board has petitioned for enforcement of its order issued against respondent, reported at 204 NLRB No. 113.

The Board found that respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, 29 U. S.C. § 158(a)(1), by discharging its employee Patricia Clark for exercising rights guaranteed to her by Section 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157. The employee Clark was a waitress at an independently owned restaurant which was franchised by respondent. She was discharged on August 17, 1972 near the end of her work shift. The evidence shows that the air conditioning in the restaurant where Miss Clark worked had been off a number of times during the summer of 1972 and that she and other employees had complained to the manager. On the morning of August 17 the restaurant was hot and the floor in the area where the waitresses picked up orders was wet. Miss Clark and several of the other employees complained and the manager told them that she was hot too and that nothing could be done about it.

A meeting of all the employees had previously been scheduled for 4:00 p. m. on August 17, and Miss Clark requested the manager to have the owner present so that the complaints of the employees could be considered. The manager refused to call the owner, but dialed his number and permitted Miss Clark to talk with him. He responded to the request by stating that the manager was in charge and that he did not plan to deal with the complaints personally, though he finally agreed to come to the restaurant. The franchised restaurant where Miss Clark worked was non-union and there was no established procedure for handling employee complaints. Throughout the morning the employees, with Miss Clark acting as spokesman, continued to complain about the heat, wet floor and a shortage of spoons. Miss Clark suggested within the hearing of the manager that all waitresses walk out as a means of getting relief from the bad working conditions. The record does not disclose that any employee agreed to join Miss Clark in a walkout. The manager informed the owner that Miss Clark was attempting to get the girls to walk out. It was testified by the manager that Miss Clark was discharged because she had kept everyone upset and that the restaurant could not operate properly because of the disturbance which Miss Clark created.

Following her discharge, Miss Clark applied for work as a waitress at one of respondent's company-owned restaurants. The manager knew Miss Clark from having worked with her previously and agreed to hire her, beginning September 4. Though there was a dispute as to whether Miss Clark told the manager that she had been discharged or that she had quit, the administrative law judge credited the testimony of Miss Clark....

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • N.L.R.B. v. Big Three Indus. Gas & Equipment Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • August 24, 1978
    ...the prevailing view among other circuits. Jeanette Corp. v. NLRB, 532 F.2d 916, 920, n.5 (3d Cir. 1976); NLRB v. Elias Bros. Restaurants, Inc., 496 F.2d 1165, 1167 (6th Cir. 1974); NLRB v. Central Press of Cal., 527 F.2d 1156 (9th Cir. 1975). The most exacting test is the preponderant motiv......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Empire Gas, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • December 5, 1977
    ...554 F.2d 1276 (4th Cir. 1977); N.L.R.B. v. A. Lasaponara & Sons, Inc., 541 F.2d 992 (2nd Cir. 1976); N.L.R.B. v. Elias Brothers Restaurants, Inc., 496 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1974); Shelly & Anderson Furniture Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 497 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1974); N.L.R.B. v. Buddi......
  • Fun Striders, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 26, 1982
    ...1978); see Litton Dental Products v. NLRB, 543 F.2d 1085, 1087-88 (4th Cir. 1976); NLRB v. Elias Brothers Restaurants, Inc., 496 F.2d 1165, 1167 (6th Cir. 1974) (per curiam) ("motiv(ation) in part"); NLRB v. Fairview Hospital, 443 F.2d 1217, 1219 (7th Cir. 1971) (motive must be solely legit......
  • In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1261 (E.D. Pa. 9/4/2001), MDL No. 1261.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • September 4, 2001
    ... ... Ill.); and Crest Meat Co., Inc. v. Stone Container Corp ., Civil Action No ... ...
  • 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