NLRB v. Schnell Tool & Die Corporation

Decision Date27 April 1966
Docket NumberNo. 16163.,16163.
Citation359 F.2d 39
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SCHNELL TOOL & DIE CORPORATION and Salem Stamping & Manufacturing Co., Inc., Respondents.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Nancy Sherman, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Margaret M. Farmer, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on the brief.

Harry S. Manchester and C. Kenneth Clark, Jr., Youngstown, Ohio, for respondents, Harrington, Huxley & Smith, Youngstown, Ohio, on the brief.

Before EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, BROWN, District Judge, and GREEN, District Judge.*

GREEN, District Judge.

This case is before the Court upon the petition of the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., for enforcement of an order issued against respondents Schnell Tool & Die Corporation and Salem Stamping and Manufacturing Company. The order under consideration is as follows:

* * * Schnell Tool & Die Corporation and Salem Stamping & Manufacturing Co., Inc., their officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees coercively concerning their union membership or activities, threatening them with reprisals, such as loss of employment, reduction in earnings or cessation of operations if they continue to support their union; harassing or subjecting union supporters to verbal abuse; questioning applicants for employment concerning their union affiliations, sympathies or attitudes; denying to the union the privilege of posting notices on the plant bulletin board; or threatening to discharge employees who give affidavits or statements to Board agents investigating charges of unfair labor practices.
(b) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging employees or terminating their employment and refusing to reinstate them, or discriminating in any other manner against them in regard to hire, tenure or any other term or condition of their employment.
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with the union with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other terms and conditions of employment in the bargaining units hereinbefore described as appropriate.
(d) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer employment at Salem Stamping, or at Schnell Tool & Die Plant No. 1, or at Plant No. 2, if it is repossessed to George Bettis, Alfred Stockwell, Orville Weingart, Arthur Brandonisio, John Carlisle, Frank Chestnut, Arthur Rozeski, Homer McCartney, Marvin McFarland, George Pow, Steve Rogers and John Yocus, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make whole these employees, as well as Robert Bates, for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their permanent layoff at Schnell Tool & Die Plant No. 2 in the manner and to the extent set forth in section V of this report, entitled "The remedy".
(b) Offer to Ormond Long and Phillip Groves immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them, as well as the estate of Charles Messenger, whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondents\' discrimination in the manner and to the extent set forth in section V of this report, entitled "The remedy".
(c) Upon request bargain collectively with the union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining units hereinbefore described as appropriate and embody in a signed agreement any understanding which may be reached.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze and compute the amounts of back pay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at their plants at Salem, Ohio, copies of the notice attached hereto marked Appendix. Copies of the said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after being duly signed by respondents\' representatives, be posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondents to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps have been taken to comply herewith.

The said order was adopted by a three-member panel of the Board on September 6, 1963, acting on a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner.

The order issued based on a complaint filed February 15, 1963, arising from charges originally filed on December 28, 1962, as amended on January 3, 1963 and February 11, 1963. The activities of respondents alleged to have constituted the unfair labor practices occurred during a period from mid-1962 to early 1963.

In light of the disposition of this matter made herein, it is not necessary to set forth a full exposition of all the facts pertinent to the alleged unfair labor practices. A short history of the companies concerned and their relationship to the union provides a sufficient background for the Court's determination.

Schnell Tool & Die Company and Salem Stamping & Manufacturing Company were separate Ohio corporations. Both corporations were wholly owned by the Schnell family, with the exception of two shares of Schnell Tool stock. The patriarch of the Schnell family is Michael Schnell, who along with his son Charles Schnell ran the affairs of the two corporations. Both corporations had the same officers and board of directors.

Schnell Tool was engaged in the manufacture of metal stampings, metal stamping dies, tools, jigs and fixtures. Salem Stamping was engaged in the manufacture of V-belt pulleys and some stampings. Schnell Tool had two separate manufacturing facilities, known as Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2. Plant No. 1 shared the same building with Salem Stamping, while Plant No. 2 was located some distance away. Plant No. 2 had formerly been the Gonda Engineering Company, engaged in essentially the same business as Schnell Tool, and was purchased by Schnell Tool in 1960 when Gonda ran into serious financial difficulties.

In the summer of 1962 a union organizational campaign was begun among the employees of both Schnell Tool and Salem Stamping. On October 9, 1962 separate elections on the question of union representation were held for Schnell Tool and Salem Stamping. On October 16, 1962 the union was certified as the bargaining representative of the employees, in two separate units consisting of the Schnell Tool employees at both plants in one unit and of the Salem Stamping employees in the other. In Schnell Tool the vote for the union was 28 for to 22 against, while at Salem Stamping the union prevailed by a 29 to 6 vote.

Some time between October 16 and November 8, 1962, not clearly established in the record, Schnell Tool leased Plant No. 2 to Quaker Manufacturing Company, a corporation wholly owned by the manager of the die shop in Plant No. 2 and an associate of his who had been plant manager of another concern in Salem, Ohio, engaged in die operations. Quaker Manufacturing was formed for the purpose of leasing Plant No. 2, and the lease, which was extremely favorable to the lessee, contained an option to buy. Upon the consummation of this transaction the Schnell employees of the Tool and Die Department of Plant No. 2 were moved to Schnell Plant No. 1. The remainder of the Plant No. 2 employees were not transferred.

The first post-election negotiating session between the companies and the union took place on November 7, 1962. Mr. Harry S. Manchester, attorney for the companies, met with the union representatives on that date. Thereafter several more meetings were had between Mr. Manchester and the Union representatives, ending with a meeting on January 4, 1963. No agreement was reached as a result of the said meetings, and shortly thereafter these proceedings were commenced before the National Labor Relations Board.

The only other facts of record before the Board which this court considers necessary to relate herein are with reference to certain alleged individual discriminatory discharges of three Schnell Tool employees. Ormond Long, who was a leader in the union movement, was discharged from Schnell Tool on January 16, 1963. He had previously been suspended from employment on December 17, 1962. Charles Messenger, who died early in 1963, was discharged on December 19, 1962. Phillip Groves was discharged by Michael Schnell on November 19, 1962.

In entering the order herein the Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which are summarized in petitioner's brief as follows:

The Board found that Schnell Tool and Salem Stamping constitute a single employer for the purposes of the Act. The Board further found that the Company (i. e., Schnell Tool and Salem Stamping) interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their statutory rights, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act; that the Company leased Plant No. 2 of Schnell Tool, discharged 13 employees employed in that plant, and refused them employment at the Salem Stamping plant in order to weaken the Union, thus violating Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act; that the Company discharged Ormond Long, Charles Messenger, and Phillip Groves
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Las Vegas v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 27 d2 Fevereiro d2 2018
    ...to bargain with a unit that, all agree, does not exist, enforcement would be a vain and useless act...."); NLRB. v. Schnell Tool & Die Corp. , 359 F.2d 39, 44 (6th Cir. 1966) ("It is clear from the face of the order [including a cease-and-desist provision and other injunctive relief] that e......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Globe Sec. Services, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 7 d1 Fevereiro d1 1977
    ...U.S. at 101-02, 62 S.Ct. 452; NLRB v. McMahon, 428 F.2d 1213, 1214 (9th Cir. 1970); Kostilnik, supra at 733; NLRB v. Schnell Tool & Die Corp., 359 F.2d 39, 44 (6th Cir. 1966); NLRB v. Electric Steam Radiator Corp., 321 F.2d 733, 734 (6th Cir. 1963); Coal Creek Coal Co., supra at 580; NLRB v......
  • NLRB v. Family Heritage Home-Beaver Dam, Inc., 72-1443.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 12 d2 Fevereiro d2 1974
    ...192 F.2d 524, 528 (7th Cir., 1951). Contra, N.L.R.B. v. McMahon, 428 F.2d 1213, 1214 (9th Cir., 1970); N.L.R.B. v. Schnell Tool & Die Corporation, 359 F. 2d 39, 44 (6th Cir., 1966). Of course, an employer will not be held responsible for failure to perform acts genuinely made impossible by ......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Retail Store Employees Union, Local 876 Retail Clerks Intern. Ass'n, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 11 d3 Janeiro d3 1978
    ...remedy and actually thwart the goals of national labor policy. The situation here is distinguishable from that in NLRB v. Schnell Tool & Die Corp., 359 F.2d 39 (6th Cir. 1966), where this Court refused to enforce a Board reinstatement order against employers who had sold their businesses su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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