NLRB v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 15786.
Decision Date | 27 February 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 15786.,15786. |
Citation | 341 F.2d 750 |
Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. and Winn-Dixie Louisville, Inc., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Duane R. Batista, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Lee M. Modjeska, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., on brief, for petitioner.
Otto Bowden, Jacksonville, Fla., Hamilton & Bowden, Jacksonville, Fla., on brief, for respondent.
Before MILLER, O'SULLIVAN and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board has petitioned for enforcement of its decision and order reported at 143 N.L. R.B. 848.
Respondent Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., a Florida corporation, operates through subsidiaries or divisions some 600 retail food supermarkets in the southeastern part of the United States. The present case involves a union organizational campaign at the Winn-Dixie Store at Owensboro, Kentucky, which is one of thirty-three stores operated by respondent Winn-Dixie Louisville, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary corporation. Both respondents urge that enforcement of the Board's order be denied, upon various grounds hereinafter discussed. We grant enforcement of the order of the Board.
On August 6, 1962, District Union Local 227, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, began an organizational drive among the twenty-three employees of the Owensboro store. Respondents vigorously resisted unionization. On August 15 the union forwarded to the divisional manager of Winn-Dixie Louisville photostatic copies of sixteen signed authorization cards and requested recognition and collective-bargaining conferences. Respondents refused to recognize the union. On August 24 Winn-Dixie Louisville filed a petition with the Board for an election, which the Board thereafter dismissed when the complaint was issued in the present proceedings.
The Board found, in agreement with its trial examiner, that respondents violated Section 8(a) (1) of the act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), by threats of reprisal against employees because of union activity and by requesting that employees furnish copies of statements given to agents of the Board in connection with the investigation of this case. The Board also found that respondents violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (5) and (1), by refusing to bargain with the union. The order of the Board requires respondents to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and from in any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing the employees regarding their rights under Section 7 of the act, and requires respondents to bargain with the union upon request and to post the usual notices.
Respondents contend that even if Winn-Dixie Louisville is found guilty of any of the unfair labor practices charged, the order should not be made applicable to the parent corporation. The Board found that the two respondents have common officers, directors and operators; that the common directors and operators formulate and administer a common labor policy for both respondents; that the same directors sit as the ultimate managerial authority for both the parent and subsidiary; and that the basic labor relations policy of the subsidiary emanates from the headquarters of the parent corporation in Jacksonville, Florida. It further appears that the parent corporation provides all the working capital of the subsidiary and guarantees performance of the contracts of the subsidiary. Upon the record in this case we find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in holding that the parent corporation, respondent Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., is liable together with its subsidiary for the unfair labor practices found with respect to the Owensboro store. N. L. R. B. v. Gibraltar Industries, Inc., 307 F.2d 428, 431 (C.A. 4), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 911, 83 S.Ct. 724, 9 L.Ed.2d 719; N. L. R. B. v. National Shoes, Inc., 208 F.2d 688, 691 (C.A. 2); Darlington Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 325 F.2d 682, 687-691 (C.A. 4) (dissenting opinion), cert. granted, 377 U.S. 903, 84 S.Ct. 1170, 12 L.Ed.2d 175 (1964) (No. 874, 1963 Term; renumbered No. 41, 1964 Term); cf. N. L. R. B. v. Deena Artware, Inc., 361 U.S. 398, 402-404, 80 S.Ct. 441, 4 L.Ed. 2d 400; N. L. R. B. v. Elias Brothers Big Boy, Inc., 325 F.2d 360 (C.A.6); N. L. R. B. v. Royal Oak Tool & Machine Co., 320 F.2d 77, 80, 81 (C.A.6).
It is to be emphasized that the order of the Board is expressly limited in its application to the Owensboro store, and does not apply to other supermarkets operated by respondents.
We find substantial evidence on the record supporting the Board's conclusion that respondents violated Section 8(a) (1) by interrogation and threats of reprisal, including a threat to close the Owensboro store in event a majority of the employees authorized the union to become their bargaining representative. Reference is made to the decision of the Board for details of these violations. 143 N.L.R.B. 848.
The only aspect of the Section 8 (a) (1) violations requiring discussion here is the Board's finding that respondents violated the act by requesting from employees copies of statements given to agents of the Board. We approve the following language of the Board's decision on this point:
143 N.L. R.B. at 849-50.
See also, Siegel Co. v. N. L. R. B., 328 F.2d 25, 27 (C.A. 2).
It is to be emphasized that the Board recognized, as do we, that the respondents had the right to "interview employees for the purpose of discovering facts within the limits of the issues raised by a complaint, where the employer, or its counsel, does so for the purpose of preparing its case for trial and does not go beyond the necessities of such preparation to pry into matters of union membership, to discuss the nature or extent of union activity, to dissuade employees from joining or remaining members of a union, or otherwise to interfere with the statutory right to self-organization." Joy Silk Mills v. N. L. R. B., 87 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 185 F.2d 732, 743, cert. denied, 341 U.S. 914, 71 S.Ct. 734, 95 L.Ed. 1350.
In Joy Silk Mills the court also said:
185 F.2d at 743.
Moreover, the Board has held that while the employer may not, prior to the hearing, ask for a copy of a statement given by the employee to the Board, he may ask whether the employee has given the Board a statement. Montgomery Ward & Co., 146 N.L.R.B. No. 1. Further, the employer is entitled to access to the statement when the employee testifies at the hearing, Raser Tanning Co. v. N. L. R. B., 276 F.2d 80, 82-83 (C.A. 6), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 830, 80 S.Ct. 1601, 4 L.Ed.2d 1524, or may request copies without coercion under procedures established by the Board. W. T. Grant Company v. N. L. R. B., 337 F.2d 447 (C.A. 7).
This court has reached the same decision on this question in its opinion announced today in Surprenant Manufacturing Co. v. N. L. R. B., 6 Cir., 341 F.2d 756.
The most serious question presented is that part of the Board's order requiring that respondents proceed upon request to bargain with the union, as the exclusive representative of the employees at respondents' Owensboro store, even though no election has been conducted. The Board found that at the time the union requested recognition by respondents as bargaining representative, it had valid designation cards signed by a majority of the employees, and that respondents refused recognition, not because of a good faith doubt as to the union's majority status, but in order to gain time in which to undermine that status.
The union furnished to respondents photostatic copies of sixteen signed authorization cards. The Board rejected two of the cards as having been signed by supervisors, and a third because the employee was told that the only purpose of signing the card...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
NLRB v. Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co.
...National Labor Relations Board v. Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 351 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965); see National Labor Relations Board v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750, 754-755 (6th Cir. 1965); cf. Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 185 F.2d 732, 7......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Martin A. Gleason, Inc.
...fell within the ban of our decision in Henry L. Siegel Co. v. NLRB, supra, and of the Sixth Circuit's decisions in NLRB v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750 (6 Cir.) cert. denied, 382 U.S. 830, 86 S.Ct. 69, 15 L.Ed.2d 74 (1965), and Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 341 F.2d 756 (6 Cir. 1965......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Hardeman Garment Corp.
...conduct is not without peril. See N.L.R.B. v. Martin A. Gleason, Inc., 534 F.2d 466, 479-81 (2d Cir. 1976); N.L.R.B. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750, 753 (6th Cir. 1965); Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d at 762-63. See also Johnnie's Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. 770 (1964).10 Thi......
-
NLRB v. Golden Age Beverage Company
...non-evasive statement, a circumstance complicating a determination of the actual facts in a labor dispute. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 6 Cir., 341 F.2d 750 (1965); Suprenant Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B., 6 Cir., 341 F.2d 756 (1965); Texas Industries, Inc., v. N.L.R.B., 5 C......