NLRB v. Gentithes, No. 71-1373.
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | SEITZ, , and KALODNER and GIBBONS, Circuit |
| Citation | 463 F.2d 557 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. George H. GENTITHES et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 27 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1373. |
463 F.2d 557 (1972)
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
George H. GENTITHES et al., Respondents.
No. 71-1373.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued December 2, 1971.
Decided June 27, 1972.
Michael Winer, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Robert S. Meermans, Evans, Gentithest & Meermans, Warren, Ohio, for respondents.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
SEITZ, Chief Judge.
The National Labor Relations Board ("the Board") seeks enforcement against defendants of a cease and desist order issued August 4, 1970.
The Facts
Defendants operate an automobile dealership ("the Company"). As of 1968, their service personnel were not unionized. In the summer of that year union organizational activities were initiated by representatives of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No. 63, AFL-CIO ("the Union"). Aiding these representatives were two Company employees named Thomas Richmond and Louis Vore.
The Union's efforts resulted in an election being ordered held in the spring of 1969. The election produced a tie vote and, consequently, unionization was defeated. Organizational efforts predictably subsided thereafter. However, Richmond and the Union representatives did maintain a subdued campaign in an attempt to kindle interest for another election. During this period defendant Hagan, as general manager of the Company, disclosed to employees a proposed package of employee benefits. He also
All service employees were invited to attend the dinner. Neither the initial announcement nor subsequent reminders suggested that those electing not to attend would face any disciplinary measures. Richmond and Vore were the only service personnel who did not attend. Several days after the dinner was held both were informed that they had been indefinitely laid off. "Lack of cooperation" was cited as the official cause for their dismissal, although their failure to attend the dinner was pointed out when specific reasons were requested.
The Complaint and Order
Following dismissal of Richmond and Vore the Union filed charges with the Board against the Company. These charges were reviewed by General Counsel who then prepared a complaint alleging that defendants had committed unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act ("the Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. Specifically, the Company was charged with violating §§ 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a) (1), (a) (3), in the following respects:
(1) having announced, and then granted, economic benefits to employees to dissuade them from joining, supporting or assisting the Union in its organizational efforts;
(2) having attempted to convince employees of the futility of joining, supporting or assisting the Union; and
(3) having discriminatorily discharged employees Richmond and Vore because they were members of or engaged in activities on behalf of the Union, or in other protected activities, or both.
The trial examiner concluded that only charge (3) was supported by the record. Accordingly, his proposed order was limited to reinstatement of Richmond and Vore and enjoining further unfair labor practices by the Company involving the discharge of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. K & K Gourmet Meats, Inc., No. 80-1231
...The theory advanced by the Board in this case bears a remarkable similarity to the theory rejected by this court in NLRB v. Gentithes, 463 F.2d 557 (3d Cir. 1972). In Gentithes, the Board contended that various remarks by an employer to the effect that he opposed unionization "were designed......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Eagle Material Handling, Inc., No. 77-1186
...the exercise of rights protected under the Act. Accord, NLRB v. Triangle Publications, Inc., supra, 500 F.2d at 598. 8 NLRB v. Gentithes, 463 F.2d 557, 559 (3d Cir. 1972), expressly avoided deciding whether the holding of Exchange Parts, supra, that a preelection grant of benefits made to d......
-
U.S. v. Taylor, No. 82-3096
...may not be impeached by contradictions as to Page 874 collateral or irrelevant matters elicited on cross-examination." (emphasis added) 463 F.2d at 557. Appellant erroneously asserts that Lambert does not allow a witness to be impeached on "collateral matters on cross-examination." Lambert ......
-
Western Exterminator Co. v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 76-2293
...in any part); NLRB v. Townhouse T.V. & App., Inc., 531 F.2d 826, 828 (7th Cir. 1976) (motivated at least in part); NLRB v. Gentithes, 463 F.2d 557, 560 (3rd Cir. 1972) (substantial or motivating cause); NLRB v. Fibers Int'l Corp., 439 F.2d 1311, 1312 (1st Cir. 1971) (dominant motive); NLRB ......
-
N.L.R.B. v. K & K Gourmet Meats, Inc., No. 80-1231
...The theory advanced by the Board in this case bears a remarkable similarity to the theory rejected by this court in NLRB v. Gentithes, 463 F.2d 557 (3d Cir. 1972). In Gentithes, the Board contended that various remarks by an employer to the effect that he opposed unionization "were designed......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Eagle Material Handling, Inc., No. 77-1186
...the exercise of rights protected under the Act. Accord, NLRB v. Triangle Publications, Inc., supra, 500 F.2d at 598. 8 NLRB v. Gentithes, 463 F.2d 557, 559 (3d Cir. 1972), expressly avoided deciding whether the holding of Exchange Parts, supra, that a preelection grant of benefits made to d......
-
U.S. v. Taylor, No. 82-3096
...may not be impeached by contradictions as to Page 874 collateral or irrelevant matters elicited on cross-examination." (emphasis added) 463 F.2d at 557. Appellant erroneously asserts that Lambert does not allow a witness to be impeached on "collateral matters on cross-examination." Lambert ......
-
Western Exterminator Co. v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 76-2293
...in any part); NLRB v. Townhouse T.V. & App., Inc., 531 F.2d 826, 828 (7th Cir. 1976) (motivated at least in part); NLRB v. Gentithes, 463 F.2d 557, 560 (3rd Cir. 1972) (substantial or motivating cause); NLRB v. Fibers Int'l Corp., 439 F.2d 1311, 1312 (1st Cir. 1971) (dominant motive); NLRB ......