NLRB v. Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Company, No. 16413.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 358 F.2d 948 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. MURRAY-OHIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 16413. |
| Decision Date | 19 April 1966 |
358 F.2d 948 (1966)
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
MURRAY-OHIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondent.
No. 16413.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
April 19, 1966.
Robert B. Schwartz, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on brief, for petitioner.
Frank A. Constangy, Atlanta, Ga., Constangy & Prowell, Atlanta, Ga., on brief, for respondent.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on the petition of the Board for enforcement of its order issued against Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Company. Its decision and order are reported at 148 NLRB No. 153.
The Board found that during an intensive organizational campaign by a labor union the company violated Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, (29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) by interrogating its employees about their own and other employees' union activities, by threatening an employee with the loss of his job unless he abandoned the union, and by requesting an employee to speak to a co-employee about the union and to ascertain how he felt about it. The Board further found that the company violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discharging a timekeeper named Malcolm Tarkington, because of his union activity. The order of the Board required the company to cease and desist from engaging in the above unfair labor practices and to reinstate Tarkington with back pay.
Upon a review of the record we are of the opinion that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the company violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in the interview by its foreman Umphrey with the employee, L. V. Kelly, and in the tape recorded conference between Personnel Director Smotherman and employee Howell. Both of these interviews were coercive in nature and constituted an interference with rights of the employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We find nothing wrong, however, in the interviews between Umphrey and Webb and General Foreman Jasper Sayre and Webb. Both Umphrey and Sayre merely exercised their right of free speech and their conversations involved no coercion, interference or threats.
The discharge of Tarkington requires consideration not only of the evidence, but of inferences which the Board...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Cement Transport, Inc., No. 73-1260.
...is primarily factual, to be determined initially by the Board through its administrative apparatus. N. L. R. B. v. Murray Ohio Mfg. Co., 358 F.2d 948, 950 (6th Cir. 1966); N. L. R. B. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc., 375 F.2d 497, 505 (6th Cir. 1967). "The Board, not the courts, has the de......
-
In re Unit Parts Co., Bankruptcy No. 80-01101.
...the employer's true motive is a question of fact to be determined from a consideration of all the evidence. NLRB v. Murray-Ohio Mfg. Co., 358 F.2d 948 (6th Cir.1966). In that regard, a finding must be made that the alleged discriminatory conduct was motivated by an anti-union purpose in ord......
-
NLRB v. Howell Automatic Machine Company, No. 71-1246.
...motivation in firing is a factual one to be determined primarily by the Trial Examiner and the Board, N.L.R.B. v. Murray Ohio Mfg. Co., 358 F.2d 948, 950 (6th Cir.1966). Such determination is subject to review in this Court limited to the question of whether or not it is supported by substa......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Gogin, No. 77-1718
...making this determination the Board is free to rely on circumstantial, as well as direct evidence. NLRB v. Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co., 358 F.2d 948, 950 (6th Cir. 1966). Further, while there must be substantial evidence on the record to support the decision of the Board, the decision is ......
-
NLRB v. Cement Transport, Inc., 73-1260.
...is primarily factual, to be determined initially by the Board through its administrative apparatus. N. L. R. B. v. Murray Ohio Mfg. Co., 358 F.2d 948, 950 (6th Cir. 1966); N. L. R. B. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc., 375 F.2d 497, 505 (6th Cir. 1967). "The Board, not the courts, has the de......
-
In re Unit Parts Co., Bankruptcy No. 80-01101.
...the employer's true motive is a question of fact to be determined from a consideration of all the evidence. NLRB v. Murray-Ohio Mfg. Co., 358 F.2d 948 (6th Cir.1966). In that regard, a finding must be made that the alleged discriminatory conduct was motivated by an anti-union purpose in ord......
-
NLRB v. Howell Automatic Machine Company, 71-1246.
...motivation in firing is a factual one to be determined primarily by the Trial Examiner and the Board, N.L.R.B. v. Murray Ohio Mfg. Co., 358 F.2d 948, 950 (6th Cir.1966). Such determination is subject to review in this Court limited to the question of whether or not it is supported by substa......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Gogin, 77-1718
...making this determination the Board is free to rely on circumstantial, as well as direct evidence. NLRB v. Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co., 358 F.2d 948, 950 (6th Cir. 1966). Further, while there must be substantial evidence on the record to support the decision of the Board, the decision is ......