Texarkana Bus Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 499

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtGARDNER, SANBORN, and THOMAS, Circuit
Citation119 F.2d 480
PartiesTEXARKANA BUS CO., Inc., et al. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
Docket NumberNo. 499
Decision Date30 April 1941

119 F.2d 480 (1941)

TEXARKANA BUS CO., Inc., et al.
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

No. 499, Original.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 30, 1941.


119 F.2d 481
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
119 F.2d 482
Ned Stewart, of Texarkana, Ark. (Paul Jones, Jr., of Texarkana, Ark., on the brief), for petitioners

Maurice J. Nicoson, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D. C. (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Samuel Edes, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, David C. Sachs, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, and Malcolm A. Hoffmann, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.

Before GARDNER, SANBORN, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

GARDNER, Circuit Judge.

This is a petition for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board filed by the petitioners Texarkana Bus Company, Inc., referred to in the record as Bus Company, and Two States Transportation Company, Inc., referred to in the record as Taxi Company. They will be so referred to in this opinion.

The order was entered after hearing on complaint filed by respondent based upon charges made by the Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, charging petitioners with certain unfair labor practices. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the Board found (1) that petitioners had each violated Section 8(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(1), by preparing and requesting their employees to sign letters renouncing the Amalgamated as collective bargaining representative; (2) that the Bus Company had required its employees to disclose their union affiliations; (3) that the Bus Company had discriminatorily discharged one of its employees, Thomas; (4) that the Bus Company had expressed opposition to the organizational efforts of its employees; (5) that the Bus Company had been guilty of discrimination in the hire and tenure of four employees, Pierce, Whatley, Jr., Goss, and Herndon, Jr., and (6) that the Bus Company had refused to bargain collectively with the Amalgamated although that organization was the majority representative of the employees in an appropriate unit. Upon these findings the Board entered a cease and desist order and as affirmative relief ordered the Bus Company (a) to offer reinstatement with back pay to Pierce, Whatley, Jr., and Goss; (b) to make whole Pierce and Herndon, Jr., for losses of pay suffered by them as the result of their discriminatory suspensions; (c) upon request, to bargain collectively with the Amalgamated; and (d) to post appropriate notices.

Petitioner Texarkana Bus Company, Inc., attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of the Board, alleges that the Board erred in ordering reinstatement of the discharged employees; that it erred in ordering the Bus Company to make whole each of the employees alleged to have been improperly discharged; that it erred in ordering the Bus Company to make good any loss of pay by reason of suspension of the employees mentioned; that the Board erred in ordering the Bus Company to bargain collectively with the Amalgamated Union and in requiring it to post notices.

Petitioner, Two States Transportation Company, Inc., attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the charge that it in any manner interfered with, mistreated or coerced its employees in the rights guaranteed to them in Section 8(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, and that the Board erred in ordering it to post notices.

The Bus Company is engaged exclusively in carrying passengers in commercial busses between the twin cities of Texarkana, Arkansas, and Texarkana, Texas, while the Taxi Company is engaged exclusively in the operation of taxi cabs for transportation purposes between and through the twin cities of Texarkana, Arkansas, and Texarkana, Texas. These cities are substantially one city, separated only by the state line between Texas and Arkansas. The companies are owned by the same stockholders, managed by the same directors, and officered by the same officers. C. E. Mitchell is the president, Bero Eldridge vice-president, and Joseph Eldridge secretary-treasurer. The companies, however, are operated as two separate and distinct companies, and it is conceded that both of them are engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Labor Relations Act.

We shall first consider the Act as it relates to the practices of the Bus Company. That company requires each of its

119 F.2d 483
employees to fill out and sign an application form, naming "any lodge, labor or benefit organization of which you are a member." This practice was adopted in 1935 before the enactment of the Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., but it was continued after the passage of that Act, and it was in use as late as 1939. Inquiry by the employer of the employees' union affiliations has been held to be violative of the Act. N. L. R. B. v. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n, 310 U.S. 318, 60 S.Ct. 918, 84 L.Ed. 1226; N. L. R. B. v. J. Freezer & Son, Inc., 4 Cir., 95 F.2d 840; N. L. R. B. v. Hearst, 9 Cir., 102 F.2d 658. In June, 1939, the officers of the Bus Company prepared letters on company stationery, addressed to "Mr. J. D. Elliott or To whom it may concern," reading as follows

"Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to advise you that I do not wish for you or anyone else to bargain for or make any kind of a contract for me or in my behalf with the Texarkana Bus Company, Inc.

"Yours truly,"

They then invited practically all of the drivers for the Bus Company to their office and requested each to sign a copy. Only two of the employees so interviewed declined to sign. Many of the men signing testified that they did not know what they were signing. One driver was told that "it didn't concern the union." The J. D. Elliott addressed was an organizer for the Amalgamated and was then actively engaged in attempting to organize the employees of the Bus Company and have them join the Amalgamated Union. This was done immediately following a meeting attended by Mr. Elliott, a committee of the members of the Amalgamated Union, and the officers of the Bus Company. The letter was not only addressed to Mr. Elliott, but "To whom it may concern," and recited that its purpose was to advise that the signer of the letter did not "wish for you or anyone else to bargain for or make any kind of a contract for me or in my behalf with the Texarkana Bus Company, Inc." The letter announced in effect that the signer did not wish anyone to bargain for him. The Board was warranted in believing that this was a manifest attempt to influence the employees in a matter of labor organization and to forestall, if possible, the selection of a representative to bargain collectively for the employees.

An attempt was made to organize the employees of the Company in 1935. At a meeting of the employees in September of that year, it was decided to secure a charter from the Teamsters' Union, and an employee by the name of Thomas was elected temporary treasurer. The following morning he was advised that he was suspended for a ninety day period. While the evidence is in dispute, the Board might have believed therefrom that Mr. Eldridge told Thomas that he did not think the employees ought to have organized the Truckers' and Teamsters' Union, but that they ought to have a union of their own. In the same conversation in which Thomas was told that he had been suspended, Thomas indicated that he was in favor of organizing the union, to which Eldridge replied that if that was his attitude toward the Company, he was fired, and he was thereupon discharged. The Board from this evidence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp., Laundry Drivers and Helpers Local No. 88, No. 88
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 26, 1960
    ...U.S. 914, 71 S.Ct. 734, 95 L.Ed. 1350); solicitation by management of union withdrawal letters (Texarkana Bus Co. v. N. L. R. B., 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 480, 483; N. L. R. B. v. United Biscuit Co., 8 Cir., 208 F.2d 52, 55, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 934, 74 S.Ct. 629, 98 L.Ed. 1085); unequal adva......
  • Medo Photo Supply Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 265
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1944
    ...Electric Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 6 Cir., 123 F.2d 887; Texarkana Bus Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 480, 484. See also National Labor Relations Board v. Union Pacific Stages, Inc., 9 Cir., 99 F.2d 153, 158, 159. 8 It is to be recalled that the wh......
  • Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 10433.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • November 2, 1950
    ...employer of the employees' union affiliations has been held to be violative of the Act." Texarkana Bus Co. v. N. L. R. B., 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 480, 483. See Matter of Standard Coosa-Thatcher Co., 85 N. L. R. B. 1358, when the Board stated the reason for this determination: "Our exper......
  • R.H. White Co. v. Murphy
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 2, 1942
    ...Federation No. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 546, 547,57 S.Ct. 592, 81 L.Ed. 789;Texarkana Bus Co., Inc., v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 480, 484. In the present case the commission found that the contract in question was not a bar to an election and certification. See cases cited ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp., Laundry Drivers and Helpers Local No. 88, No. 88
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 26, 1960
    ...U.S. 914, 71 S.Ct. 734, 95 L.Ed. 1350); solicitation by management of union withdrawal letters (Texarkana Bus Co. v. N. L. R. B., 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 480, 483; N. L. R. B. v. United Biscuit Co., 8 Cir., 208 F.2d 52, 55, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 934, 74 S.Ct. 629, 98 L.Ed. 1085); unequal adva......
  • Medo Photo Supply Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 265
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1944
    ...Electric Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 6 Cir., 123 F.2d 887; Texarkana Bus Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 480, 484. See also National Labor Relations Board v. Union Pacific Stages, Inc., 9 Cir., 99 F.2d 153, 158, 159. 8 It is to be recalled that the wh......
  • Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 10433.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • November 2, 1950
    ...employer of the employees' union affiliations has been held to be violative of the Act." Texarkana Bus Co. v. N. L. R. B., 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 480, 483. See Matter of Standard Coosa-Thatcher Co., 85 N. L. R. B. 1358, when the Board stated the reason for this determination: "Our exper......
  • R.H. White Co. v. Murphy
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 2, 1942
    ...Federation No. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 546, 547,57 S.Ct. 592, 81 L.Ed. 789;Texarkana Bus Co., Inc., v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 480, 484. In the present case the commission found that the contract in question was not a bar to an election and certification. See cases cited ......
  • 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