NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24935.,24935. |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GREAT DANE TRAILERS, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Allen J. Berk, Atty., NLRB, Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Lawrence M. Joseph, Attorney, for petitioner.
Robert C. Lanquist, Hamilton & Bowden, Jacksonville, Fla., for respondent.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, WISDOM, Circuit Judge, and BREWSTER, District Judge.
The Board here seeks enforcement of its order, 159 N.L.R.B. No. 39, requiring Employer, Great Dane Trailers, Inc., to refrain from threatening and coercively interrogating its employees in violation of § 8(a) (1) of the Act and requiring Employer to reinstate two employees who were discharged in violation of § 8(a) (3). The sole question presented is whether taking the record as a whole substantial evidence supports the Board's order. We enforce except as to the reinstatement of one of the employees as to whom we find to have been discharged for a non-discriminatory reason.
The evidence presented on the § 8(a) (1) violation need not be detailed at any great length. The infractions were minor, but the Board's findings that the Employer had created an impression of surveillance by letting it be known that the Union meetings were being watched, by asking two employees about the activities at the Union meetings, and by allowing a minor supervisor to state that "the man upstairs would close the doors before he would let the Teamsters come in" are enough to sustain the § 8(a) (1) order. See Bilyeu Motor Corp. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 1968, 391 F.2d 928; NLRB v. Certain-Teed Products Corp., 5 Cir., 1968, 387 F.2d 639.
There is also substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that employee Lyons was discharged because of his Union activity. The Employer contends that Lyons was discharged because of his unsatisfactory work. But the timing of his discharge, the failure to afford Lyons the usual warning, notice, and opportunity to overcome deficiencies and the Employer's recent knowledge that he was a leading Union adherent were enough on which to find discriminatory motive. See NLRB v. Plant City Steel Corp., 5 Cir., 1964, 331 F.2d 511, 514-515; NLRB v. Griggs Equipment, Inc., 5 Cir., 1962, 307 F.2d 275, 278; NLRB v. Dell, 5 Cir., 1960, 283 F.2d 733, 736 n. 6, 737; NLRB v. S.S. Coachman & Sons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mobile Exploration v. NLRB
...not "provide protection to one so flagrantly insubordinate to the legitimate assertion of managerial authority." NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 396 F.2d 769, 771 (1968); see also NLRB v. Finesilver Mfg. Co., 400 F.2d 644, 649 (5th Cir. 1968) ("An employee cannot ordinarily be selective ......
-
Cramco, Inc. v. NLRB
...support its finding of violation. See NLRB v. Neuhoff Bros. Packers, Inc., 5 Cir. 1968, 398 F.2d 640 July 1, 1968; NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 5 Cir. 1968, 396 F.2d 769 June 24, 1968; NLRB v. Borden Co., 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F. 2d 412 March 4, 1968; Trailmobile Division, Pullman, Inc. v.......
-
General Electric Co., Battery Prod., Cap. Dept. v. NLRB
...upstairs would close the doors before he would let the Teamsters come in\' are enough to sustain the § 8(a) (1) order." NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 396 F.2d 769 June 24, Even more pertinent is the case NLRB v. Brown-Dunkin Co., 10 Cir. 1961, 287 F.2d 17, where the antiunion activity ......
-
Dunham v. Brock
...factors support a reasonable inference of insubordination sufficient to justify a discharge. See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 396 F.2d 769, 771 (5th Cir.1968). Section 210, the ALJ reasoned, does not sanction this type of abuse, and an employer need not tolerate it. Despite......