NLRB v. TOLEDO LOCALS NOS. 15-P & 272 OF LITH. & P.-EIU
| Decision Date | 27 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 20297.,20297. |
| Citation | 437 F.2d 55 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. TOLEDO LOCALS NOS. 15-P AND 272 OF the LITHOGRAPHERS AND PHOTO-ENGRAVERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, Respondent, and Toledo Blade Co., Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Michael F. Messitte, 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, Abigail Cooley Baskir, Michael F. Messitte, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on brief.
Warren D. Wolfe, Toledo, Ohio, for respondent.
James F. Duggan, Chicago, Ill., for intervenor; James F. Duggan, George W. Moehlenhof, on brief; McDermott, Will & Emery, Chicago, Ill., of counsel.
Before WEICK and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and O'SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
The Board found that the union violated Section 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) by restraining and coercing The Toledo Blade Company, Inc. in the selection of its representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining and adjustment of grievances. The restraint and coercion was accomplished by the union in imposing fines on the company's superintendent and two foremen, who were members of the union, for conduct in the performance of their work.1 A cease and desist order was issued which required the union affirmatively to expunge from its records the fact that the men had been fined. 175 NLRB No. 173.
In the present proceedings to enforce the Board's order the union contends (1) that the order is not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) that the Act should not be construed to inhibit what the union did. The union relies on NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175, 87 S.Ct. 2001, 18 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1967).
In our opinion there was abundant evidence, including inferences, to support the Board's order. Superintendent Aldrich was the Publisher's Representative in the collective bargaining agreement. He had authority to hire and fire and to adjust grievances. He was the highest ranking employee in the engraving department. His predecessor had represented the company in contract negotiations, and it was likely that Aldrich would continue to act in that capacity.
Foreman Jones regularly substituted for Aldrich in the performance of the latter's duties and responsibilities. Foreman Ulrich was the company's only representative on the night shift. Both foremen worked in the engraving department and had authority to handle and settle grievances.
Under union regulations the Superintendent and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
INTERNATIONAL BRO. OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS v. NLRB
...decisions have further applied the doctrine enunciated in Oakland Mailers. In N.L.R.B. v. Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P and 272 of Lithographers and Photo-Engravers International Union, 437 F.2d 55 (6th Cir.1971), wherein the court upheld the Labor Board's finding of a section 8(b)(1)(B) violatio......
-
Florida Power Light Co v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 641 National Labor Relations Board v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 8212 556, 73 8212 795
...Locals Nos. 15—P & 272, Lithographers & Photoengravers International (Toledo Blade Co., Inc.), 175 N.L.R.B. 1072 (1969), enforced, 437 F.2d 55 (CA6 1971).11 These decisions reflected a further evolution of the Oakland Mailers doctrine. In Oakland Mailers, the union had disciplined its super......
-
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC. WKRS. v. NLRB
...Cutters Local Union No. 81 v. N.L.R.B., 147 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 379-380, 458 F.2d 794, 798-799 (1972); N.L.R.B. v. Locals Nos. 15-P and 272, Lithographers, 437 F.2d 55, 57 (6th Cir. 1971); N.L.R.B. v. Sheet Metal Workers, Local 49, 430 F.2d 1348, 1349 (10th Cir. 1970). 10 Local Union No. 2150......
-
Meat Cutters Union Local 81 of AMC & BW v. NLRB
... ... L.R.B. v. Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P and 272 of the Lithographers and ... ...