NLRB v. SHELBY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 17569.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 17569.,17569. |
| Citation | 390 F.2d 595 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SHELBY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Howard B. Shore, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Paul J. Spielberg, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Arthur R. Donovan, Evansville, Ind., (Arthur R. Donovan, Harry P. Dees, Joseph A. Yocum, Evansville, Ind., on the brief), for respondent; Kahn, Dees, Donovan & Kahn, Evansville, Ind., of counsel.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges.
The Board, in agreement with the trial examiner, found that the company violated Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended.1 The violations consisted of coercive interrogating of employees during an organizing campaign, enforcing unlawful no-solicitation and no-distribution rules, granting a wage increase because employees voted against the union, and suspending employees for wearing union insignia in the plant.
The Board further found, in disagreement with the trial examiner, that the company violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the union. The Board also discredited a witness whose testimony was credited by the examiner. 155 NLRB 464.
We are of the opinion that substantial evidence supports the Board's findings and order affirming the examiner as to the Section 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) violations, and that the Board's order with respect thereto should be enforced.
The Board's findings with respect to the Section 8(a) (5) violation, in our judgment, are not supported by substantial evidence when the record is viewed as a whole. The authorization cards had two faces. One face contained an authorization for representation with a line for signature. Undeneath the signature line were the words "This card is for use in support of the demand of UAW-AFLCIO for recognition, or for an NLRB election." The other face contained in large, bold faced type, the words "SECRET BALLOT ELECTION", and underneath, in smaller type were the words, "This card will be filed with the National Labor Relations Board to secure a secret ballot election conducted by representatives of the United States Government." Under that statement, in large, bold faced type, were the words, "THIS CARD IS CONFIDENTIAL." In our opinion these cards were ambiguous. They were calculated to and did indicate a purpose to secure an election. This is all the more clear from evidence that the card solicitors did in fact represent to a number of employees that their purpose was to secure an election. The examiner in his decision stated:
"Several witnesses testified that the talk all over the plant during the campaign was about having an election."
Under these circumstances the examiner was correct in ruling that the cards cannot be relied upon to support the bargaining order. NLRB v. Swan Super Cleaners, 384 F.2d 609 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
KAWNEER COMPANY v. NLRB
...card used there was ambiguous because it was "calculated to and did indicate a purpose to secure an election." N. L. R. B. v. Shelby Mfg. Co., 390 F.2d 595, 596 (6th Cir.1968). Although our decision in Shelby was buttressed by the observation that the card solicitors represented to a number......
-
Pennsylvania State Educ. Association-NEA v. N.L.R.B.
...as her collective-bargaining representative and her support for an election on opposite sides of the card. Accord NLRB v. Shelby Mfg. Co., 390 F.2d 595, 596 (6th Cir.1968). In the case of "ambiguous" cards, we have allowed parol evidence about what was communicated to the employee to supple......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Action Auto Stores, Inc.
...of dual purpose authorization cards for reliability. See, e.g., Dayco Corp. v. NLRB, 382 F.2d 577 (6th Cir.1967); NLRB v. Shelby Mfg. Co., 390 F.2d 595 (6th Cir.1968). These cases, however, pre-date In Gissel the Supreme Court held that employees are bound by the clear language of what they......
-
NLRB v. LENZ COMPANY
...382 F.2d 577, 582 (6th Cir. 1967). See also N.L.R.B. v. Swan Super Cleaners, Inc., 384 F.2d 609 (6th Cir. 1967); N.L.R.B. v. Shelby Mfg. Co., 390 F.2d 595 (6th Cir. 1968), and cases cited therein. In accordance with the foregoing, it is here determined that one or more of the cards is inval......