NLRB v. MARYDALE PRODUCTS COMPANY

• Decision Date: 13 March 1963
• Docket Number: No. 19551.,19551.
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. MARYDALE PRODUCTS COMPANY, Inc., Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

311 F.2d 890 (1963)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. MARYDALE PRODUCTS COMPANY, Inc., Respondent.

No. 19551.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

January 3, 1963.

Rehearing Denied March 13, 1963.

Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Joseph C. Thackery, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Herman M. Baginsky, Cobb & Wright, Lloyd J. Cobb, New Orleans, La., for respondent.

Before HUTCHESON, WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

JOSEPH C. HUTCHESON, Jr., Circuit Judge.

This case is before the court on the petition of the National Labor Relations Board¹ for enforcement of its order² against Marydale Products Co., Inc., issued on October 20, 1961. The order is based upon the Board's findings that respondent: (1) violated Sec. 8(a) (1) and (3)³ of the Act by refusing, after an "economic strike", to reinstate fifty-seven employees because they participated in the strike and by discharging five other employees because they were union sympathizers or were related to strikers; and (2) violated Sec. 8(a) (1) by threats of economic reprisal, surveillance, and interrogation. The order requires the respondent to cease and desist from those unfair labor practices, to reinstate the sixty-two discriminates with back pay, and to post an appropriate notice.

Despite respondent's contentions to the contrary, the Board's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, in view of the record as a whole, including that evidence opposed to the Board's findings.⁴ As to the finding that respondent discharged or refused to reinstate sixty-two employees in violation of Sec. 8(a) (1) and (3), the evidence shows the following. The employees of respondent⁵ made wage demands and began work stoppages. With the assistance of a representative of a national union,⁶ the workers organized pickets and subsequently organized a union. The representative from the national union and an employees' committee notified respondent that the strikers were ready to return to work, and the sixty-two workers involved in this case applied for reinstatement.⁷ None of them were hired, although respondent continued to hire additional workers after the applications for reinstatement had been made.⁸ The evidence shows, we believe, that respondent's general manager told the employees that respondent would close the plant before going union, and that no union member would be hired, and that he questioned employees who applied for reinstatement in regard to their union and strike activities. The Board was justified in finding that the workers were refused reinstatement because of their strike and union activity.

Respondent contends, however, that the workers were subject to replacement and had been, in fact, replaced before applying for replacement. Sixty-seven workers were hired during the course of the strike. The Board observes, however, that the work force had substantially increased during the course of the strike,⁹ and, as we have already noted, that respondent continued to hire workers after the strike was ended and after the application for reinstatement had been filed. On that basis, the record would certainly not warrant an inference that the workers had been permanently replaced. Respondent urges, however, that the Board failed, in considering this aspect of the case, to distinguish between the day and night shifts. The evidence shows, however, that the night shift was resumed only after the applications for reinstatement had been received, and that many of the sixty-two discriminatees expressed no preference as between the shifts or expressly stated that they would accept work on either shift. We therefore conclude that the Board was correct in finding that the discriminates had not been permanently replaced.

As to the Board's finding that respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Sec. 8(a) (1) of the Act, we believe that the evidence establishes the following. Officials of respondent made various inquiries as to who was participating in the strike and union activities, and the general manager and foreman made statements which, reasonably construed, meant that union members would not be hired and that the plant would be closed if it were unionized.

Respondent contends that, in any event, the workers were not within the protection of the Act, because they voluntarily left their jobs without making a prior demand upon their employer. In N. L. R. B. v. Washington Aluminum Co., 1962, 370 U.S. 9, 14, 82 S.Ct. 1099, 1102, 8 L.Ed.2d 298, the Supreme Court stated, in language appropriate to this case, that "We cannot agree that employees necessarily lose their right to engage in concerted activities under § 7 merely because they do not present a specific demand upon their employer to remedy a condition they find...