NLRB v. Flemingsburg Manufacturing Co.

Decision Date21 March 1962
Docket NumberNo. 14668.,14668.
Citation300 F.2d 182
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. FLEMINGSBURG MANUFACTURING CO., Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Douglas G. Cole, Cincinnati, Ohio (Lloyd A. MacDonald, Asa R. Little, Jr., Flemingsburg, Ky., on the brief), for respondent.

Before O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, and DARR and THORNTON, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This matter involves enforcement of an Order of the NLRB entered May 12, 1961, whereby the respondent, Flemingsburg Manufacturing Company of Flemingsburg, Kentucky, was ordered to cease and desist from certain practices found to be violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The violation found by the trial examiner, and affirmed by the Board, consisted of the interrogation by the respondent's plant manager of several of its employees concerning their membership in, and activities in connection with, a Union, to wit: Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. This union had been attempting to organize respondent's employees.

In 1959, an organizer for the AFL-CIO Union arrived in Flemingsburg and began its organizing efforts. In March and May of 1960, respondent's plant manager called two meetings of its employees, at which he discussed the activities of the Union organizer. It is undisputed that the plant manager announced to the employees that if the AFL-CIO Union came into the plant, there was a possibility that it would have to be closed down. Respondent company was a small company whose sole operation consisted of cutting and processing materials for a Cincinnati concern which manufactured overalls. The material was shipped from Cincinnati to Flemingsburg and after processing was returned to the Cincinnati company. It was stated by the plant manager that if the Union came into the Flemingsburg plant, causing increased labor costs, there would be no purpose in the Cincinnati company continuing to send its work to Flemingsburg. The plant manager also stated that if the Flemingsburg plant did not join up with the AFL-CIO, and their competitors did, Flemingsburg might profit thereby. The trial examiner, however, exonerated respondent from any violation because of such statements. He held that they were the exercise of free speech without threats of reprisal, and that they were not coercive in nature, (§ 158(c), Title 29, U.S.C.A.).

In May, 1960, the AFL-CIO Union filed a petition for a representation election. During June, 1960, respondent's plant manager, Hazelrigg, called in four of respondent's employees and interrogated them concerning their activities in connection with the efforts of the AFL-CIO to organize the plant. In these talks, the manager, to some extent, expressed his belief that organization by the AFL-CIO might necessitate the closing of the plant. Hazelrigg stated to Burke, one of the questioned employees, that it looked to him as if Burke and his wife, who was also an employee, were "making decent money" and further "it looks to me like what you and your wife are drawing would be better than nothing." Hazelrigg had heard that another employee had been obtaining signatures for union authorization cards. She was called in and was asked whether she had started the union activities. The trial examiner found that Hazelrigg, by his inquiries of the mentioned employees, sought to find out if they were working for the AFL-CIO Union. The examiner did not make specific findings as to just what parts of the conversations testified to were accepted by him as controlling. From it all, however, he did find that "By interrogating employees as to their union activities and sympathies, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing them in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Korn Industries, Inc. v. NLRB
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 11 Diciembre 1967
    ...relies concern organizational activities. E. g., NLRB v. Griggs Equipment, Inc., 307 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1962); NLRB v. Flemingsburg Manufacturing Co., 300 F.2d 182 (6th Cir. 1962); NLRB v. Wigwam Mills, Inc., 351 F.2d 591 (7th Cir. 1965), enforcing 149 NLRB 1601; May Department Stores Co. v......
  • Standard Oil Company v. NLRB
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 29 Agosto 1963
    ...Corp. (Research Laboratories Div.), 299 F.2d 308, 310, C.A.6, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 827, 83 S.Ct. 47, 9 L.Ed.2d 65; N. L. R. B. v. Flemingsburg Mfg. Co., 300 F.2d 182, 184, C.A.6. Absent any finding of bad faith or ulterior motive on the part of the Unions we conclude that it was the duty ......
  • NLRB v. Power Equipment Company, 14959.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 15 Febrero 1963
    ...Division), 299 F.2d 308, 310, C.A. 6, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 827, 83 S.Ct. 47, 9 L.Ed. 2d 65; National Labor Relations Board v. Flemingsburg Manufacturing Co., 300 F.2d 182, 184, C.A. 6. We sustain the finding of the Board in respect to On Friday afternoon, either October 27th or November 4......
  • NLRB v. Electric Steam Radiator Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 28 Agosto 1963
    ...330 U.S. 838, 67 S.Ct. 979, 91 L.Ed. 1285; United Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 252 F.2d 428, 430, C.A.6th; N. L. R. B. v. Flemingsburg Mfg. Co., 300 F.2d 182, 183, C.A.6th; N. L. R. B. v. Bendix Corporation (Research Laboratories Division), 299 F.2d 308, C.A.6th, cert. denied, 371 U.S......
  • 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