NLRB v. Majestic Weaving Co.

Decision Date04 January 1966
Docket NumberNo. 61,Docket 29601.,61
Citation355 F.2d 854
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. MAJESTIC WEAVING CO., Inc., Respondent, Local 815, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Intervenor.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit


George B. Driesen, Washington, D. C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Washington, D. C., Atty.), for petitioner.

Irving Rozen, New York City (Weisman, Allan, Spett & Sheinberg, Walter A. Stein, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Henry I. Hamburger, Nemeroff, Jelline, Danzig, Paley & Kaufman, New York City, for intervenor.

Before WATERMAN, MOORE and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.

FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge:

The National Labor Relations Board petitions to enforce an order ruling that the respondent, Majestic Weaving Co., Inc., rendered unlawful assistance to a union attempting to organize its plant, executed an invalid union security agreement, and unlawfully refused to bargain with the proper representative of its employees. National Labor Relations Act §§ 8(a) (1), (2), and (5). Most of the General Counsel's claims were rejected by the Board and are not here at issue. The Trial Examiner's findings, which the Board adopted although disagreeing with his conclusion, can be briefly stated.

Majestic, a corporation newly organized for the production and distribution of printed fabrics, began hiring employees for a plant under reconstruction at Cornwall, N. Y., in February 1963. The employees were told they would first perform tasks necessary to getting the plant in operation; thereafter most of them would be trained in a number of finishing and printing skills, although some craftsmen who were adept as welders, pipefitters or electricians might continue as such. On February 13, Sanderman and Friedman, representatives of Local 815, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, visited the plant and told the manager, Thomasis, that the Local represented some of the employees. Thomasis called in Majestic's labor relations consultant, Hardy, who met with the union representatives that afternoon. Sanderman repeated that Local 815 had signed up some employees, desired recognition and would like to negotiate a contract. Hardy, explaining that Majestic was just getting started and had engaged only a dozen of its work force, said he had no objection to beginning to negotiate and discuss a proposed contract provided Local 815 could show at the conclusion that it represented a majority of the employees. Sanderman and Friedman asked if they could make a tour of the plant; Hardy assented and offered to take them through. Shortly thereafter Sanderman detached himself to talk to three employees, rejoined Hardy and Friedman, and then, having "spotted a gentleman who was a little bit older" than the other employees, left the group and introduced himself. He asked whether the gentleman, Weyant Felter, had been a member of the union and, on receiving an affirmative response, explained his mission. With the aid of Friedman who had also separated from Hardy, Sanderman persuaded Felter to act as temporary shop steward and get the employees to sign cards applying for membership in Local 815. During late February, March and early April, Felter went about his solicitation on behalf of the local, with considerable success. Since people were continuously being hired and employees of contractors were also on the premises, Felter occasionally asked Thomson, the Company's personnel manager, to point out who were the new Majestic employees and introduce him. When Felter was talking to the employee, Thomson would walk away, or sometimes remain "in the vicinity," though not within hearing distance, in order to be available to point out someone else. Meanwhile four conferences were held between Sanderman, Friedman and Felter for the Union, and Hardy and, on some occasions, Thomasis for the Company. On April 26, a typical collective bargaining agreement, containing a union security clause as authorized by § 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, was executed; it was effective as of February 14, 1963, and was to terminate on December 1, 1965. Prior to the signing of the agreement the Union presented authorization cards signed by 26 of the 37 persons then employed.

On May 22, a representative of the Textile Workers Union met with five Majestic employees and persuaded them to sign membership cards and undertake to get others signed. By May 28, their efforts produced some 34 signed cards out of a force of about 45, and the union filed a petition for election with the National Labor Relations Board. On the same day, stating that it now represented a majority of the employees, the Textile Workers requested that Majestic meet with them to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement. When this demand was rejected on the ground that the Company already had an exclusive agreement with Local 815, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge, alleging that Majestic had entered into a "collusive contract with the Teamsters Union * * * for the express purpose of preventing the workers from picking a bargaining agency of their own choice," and that the agreement was executed "on February 14, 1963, at which time the Company employed approximately 4 people and there was not a single piece of equipment in operation." The complaint, issued by the General Counsel after the filing of a second charge, also alleged that the agreement with Local 815 was executed on or about February 14; it claimed, in addition to specific acts alleged to constitute unlawful assistance to Local 815, that at the time Majestic did not have a representative complement in its employ and that Local 815 was not duly designated by an uncoerced majority.

The Trial Examiner found that the contract was in fact executed on April 26 and that on this date Majestic had employed at least 30% of its ultimate complement and had employees working within at least 50% of the ultimate job categories, thus satisfying the established test for determining the stage at which a binding contract may be signed on behalf of all present and future employees. See General Extrusion Co., 121 N.L.R.B. 1165 (1958). Concluding also that the other charges of unlawful assistance had not been established, he recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The Board, acting through a three-member panel, accepted the Examiner's report in largest part but reached a different ultimate conclusion. It held that the solicitation by Felter constituted unlawful assistance in violation of § 8 (a) (2) since at the time Felter was working "in a lead capacity for the general laborers then being hired" and had received the cooperation of Thomson. It also found unlawful assistance in the very act of negotiating a contract with Local 815 as the exclusive representative of the employees before the union had achieved majority status, even though on the understanding that execution of any agreement depended on the union's having attained that goal. In arriving at this conclusion, which was thought to be a logical or even necessary corollary of International Ladies Garment Workers Union, etc., v. NLRB (Bernhard-Altmann), 366 U.S. 731, 81 S.Ct. 1603, 6 L.Ed.2d 762 (1961), the panel was obliged to overrule the Board's longstanding decision permitting such conditional negotiation, Julius Resnick, Inc., 86 N.L.R.B. 38 (1949),1 and to override the objection that no such issue had been posed by the complaint. Finally, the panel held that since the contract with Local 815 had thus resulted from violations of § 8(a) (2), execution of the agreement unlawfully interfered with employees' rights protected by § 8(a) (1), that it consequently afforded no justification for refusing to bargain with the Textile Workers, and that Majestic had thus violated § 8(a) (5). The order issued by the Board directed the Company, inter alia, to cease and desist from giving any effect to the agreement with Local 815 "or to any modification, extension, renewal or supplement thereto" and from refusing to bargain with the Textile Workers as the exclusive representative of the employees; to withdraw recognition from Local 815 unless and until the latter was certified by the Board; and to bargain with the Textile Workers. In a supplemental decision, the panel denied petitions for reconsideration by Majestic and Local 815, which, though not named as a respondent, was a party by virtue of the Board's Rules and Regulations, § 102.8, 29 C.F.R. § 102.8 (1965), see NLRB v. Majestic Weaving Co., 344 F.2d 116 (2 Cir. 1965), and ordered Majestic to reimburse all employees who by petition had protested the deduction of dues and initiation fees payable to Local 815.


The conclusion that the activities of Felter and Thomson constituted unlawful assistance to Local 815 is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

Weyant Felter was a pipefitter and boiler-operator receiving an hourly wage and punching a time clock. He would start the boiler and compressors on coming to work, watch them for an hour or two, and close them down at the end of the day. For the rest of the time he engaged in "pipe work" as directed by supervisors, being assigned such helpers, from one to three or four, as the particular job required. On a very few occasions, when a supervisor knew he would be late in getting to work, Felter would be told to show two or three of the employees what jobs were to be done. Felter was without authority, real or apparent, to hire or fire other employees or to act in any general supervisory capacity on behalf of the Company.

It is true, as counsel for the Board says, that § 8(a) (2) may be violated by organizing activities of an employee in a position of authority for which the employer may fairly be held responsible, even though it has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
92 cases
  • Consumer Protection Div. Office of Atty. Gen. v. Consumer Pub. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 1 d6 Setembro d6 1984
    ...N.J. 313, 478 A.2d 742, 749-755 (1984). See Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 94 S.Ct. 1055, 39 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974); NLRB v. Majestic Weaving Co., 355 F.2d 854, 859-861 (2d Cir.1966) (dictum). The most restrictive view is expressed in Ford Motor Co. v. F.T.C., 673 F.2d at 1009, relied on by Cons......
  • MGPC, INC. v. Duncan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming
    • 28 d2 Fevereiro d2 1984
    ...v. Harris, 613 F.2d 1176, 1179 (D.C.Cir.1980); Laguna-Hermosa Corp. v. Martin, 643 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1981); N.L.R.B. v. Magestic Weaving Co., 355 F.2d 854, 859-861 (2d Cir.1966); Retail, Wholesale and Dept. Store Union v. N.L. R.B., 466 F.2d 380 (D.C.Cir.1972); Otter Tail Power Co. v. F.E......
  • LG Balfour Company v. FTC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 5 d1 Abril d1 1971
    ...The first time it was mentioned was in the Commission counsel's proposed findings to the Commission see N. L. R. B. v. Majestic Weaving Co., 355 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1966); Northeastern Indiana Building & Construction Trade Council v. N. L. R. B., 122 U.S.App.D.C. 220, 352 F.2d 696, 699 (1965)......
  • Portmann v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 24 d3 Março d3 1982 estoppel could be based on adherence to an old rule, since no justifiable reliance could be shown. See NLRB v. Majestic Weaving Co., 355 F.2d 854, 859 (2d Cir. 1966).13 As Professor Davis has stated:The law has changed.... The doctrine of equitable estoppel does (now) apply to the govern......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Achieving the Achievable: Realistic Labor Law Reform.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 88 No. 2, March 2023
    • 22 d3 Março d3 2023
    ...(2005). (217) 356 NLRB 256, 257 (2010). (218) Id. (219) Majestic Weaving Co., 147 NLRB 859 (1964), enforcement denied on other grounds, 355 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. (220) 3 56 NLRB at 261. See Free Choice Act, supra note 14 at 322-24. (221) See AGENDA FOR REFORM, supra note 73, at 109-41. See also......
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Nat. Res. Dev. & the Admin. State: Navigating Fed. Agency Regul. & Litigation (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...a new rule through adjudicatory action, that new rule may apply retroactively to regulated entities."); NLRB v. Majestic Weaving Co., 355 F.2d 854, 860 (2d Cir. 1966) ("courts have not generally balked at allowing administrative agencies to apply a rule newly fashioned in an adjudicative pr......
  • How New Rules Affect Existing Oil and Gas Leases
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 19-10, October 1990
    • Invalid date
    ...See, e.g., Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 466 F.2d 380 (D.C. Cir. 1972). 18. NLRB v. Majestic Weaving Co., 355 F.2d 854, 860 (2nd Cir. 1966) (quoted in Retail Union, supra, note 17). 19. Op. Solic. Interior Dep't M-36888, 84 Interior Dec. 54, 62 (1976); Retai......

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