NLRB v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Company, No. 21779.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 365 F.2d 321 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. TEXAS COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 21779. |
| Decision Date | 27 June 1966 |
365 F.2d 321 (1966)
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
TEXAS COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, Respondent.
No. 21779.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
June 27, 1966.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Theodore J. Martineau, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Atty., N. L. R. B., for petitioner.
David L. Hooper, Abilene, Tex., Hooper & Perry, Abilene, Tex., for respondent.
Before RIVES, BROWN and MOORE,* Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Board seeks enforcement of its order against the respondent.1 The Board found that the respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,2 by failing to bargain in good faith with the Union, and by refusing to meet with it on and after June 24, 1963. Should this Court decide that substantial evidence on the whole record supports the Board's finding and conclusion as to bad faith bargaining, the respondent concedes the Board's position as to its further finding that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Thus, decision here turns almost entirely on whether the respondent bargained in good faith with the Union.
Among the Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions adopted by the Board were the following:
"The obligation to bargain embodied in Section 8(r) of the Act requires the parties inter alia `to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement. * * *\' Although this obligation `does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession,\' it does contemplate, as the Board and the courts have uniformly held, a willingness to enter the discussions `with an open mind and purpose to reach an agreement consistent with the respective rights of the parties\' (Majure Transport Co. v. N. L. R. B., 198 F.2d 735, 739 (C.A.5). See, also, N. L. R. B. v. Herman Sausage Co. Inc., 275 F.2d 229, 231-232 (C.A.5). And as the Supreme Court has observed, `performance of the duty to bargain requires more than a willingness to enter upon a sterile discussion of union-management differences\' (N. L. R. B. v. American National Insurance Co., 343 U.S. 395, 402 72 S.Ct. 824, 96 L.Ed. 1027). In essence, then, the `ultimate issue whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SIGN AND PICTORIAL U. LOCAL 1175, B. OF P., D. & P. v. NLRB, No. 22274.
...a sincere intention to reach an agreement consistent with the respective rights of the parties. N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 365 F.2d 321, 322 (C.A. 5, 1966). However, the collective bargaining obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making......
-
Glomac Plastics, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI
...have been viewed as evidencing the Company's bad faith. See, e. g., Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 146 N.L.R.B. 420, 430 (1964), enf'd, 365 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. It has been held that "(p)atently improbable justifications for a bargaining position will support an inference that the position is ......
-
Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, 19-CA-032148
...bargaining agreement.” U.S. Ecology Corp ., 331 N.L.R.B. at 225(citing Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 146 N.L.R.B. 420, 429 (1964), enfd. 365 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1966)). The critical determination is whether the Respondent was engaging in “ hard bargaining” as opposed to “ surface” or bad fai......
-
NLRB v. AW Thompson, Inc., No. 71-1130 Summary Calendar.
...v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 1939, 103 F.2d 91, 94. See also N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 5 Cir., 1966, 365 F.2d 321; Majure v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 735; N.L.R.B. v. Herman Sausage Co., 5 Cir., 1960, 275 F.2d 229; National Lab......
-
SIGN AND PICTORIAL U. LOCAL 1175, B. OF P., D. & P. v. NLRB, No. 22274.
...a sincere intention to reach an agreement consistent with the respective rights of the parties. N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 365 F.2d 321, 322 (C.A. 5, 1966). However, the collective bargaining obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making......
-
Glomac Plastics, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI
...have been viewed as evidencing the Company's bad faith. See, e. g., Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 146 N.L.R.B. 420, 430 (1964), enf'd, 365 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. It has been held that "(p)atently improbable justifications for a bargaining position will support an inference that the positio......
-
Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, 19-CA-032148
...bargaining agreement.” U.S. Ecology Corp ., 331 N.L.R.B. at 225(citing Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 146 N.L.R.B. 420, 429 (1964), enfd. 365 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1966)). The critical determination is whether the Respondent was engaging in “ hard bargaining” as opposed to “ surface” or bad fai......
-
NLRB v. AW Thompson, Inc., No. 71-1130 Summary Calendar.
...v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 1939, 103 F.2d 91, 94. See also N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 5 Cir., 1966, 365 F.2d 321; Majure v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 735; N.L.R.B. v. Herman Sausage Co., 5 Cir., 1960, 275 F.2d 229; National Lab......