Turner's Express, Incorporated v. NLRB
Decision Date | 14 March 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 71-1760.,71-1760. |
Citation | 456 F.2d 289 |
Parties | TURNER'S EXPRESS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
James A. Harper, Jr., Richmond, Va. (Hill B. Wellford, Jr., and Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson, Richmond, Va., on brief), for petitioner.
Arthur L. Fox, II, Atty., N. L. R. B. (Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel; Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Abigail Cooley Baskir, Atty., N. L. R. B., on brief), for respondent.
Before CRAVEN and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, District Judge.
The employer, Turner's Express, Inc., has petitioned this Court to review and set aside the Decision and Order of the Board issued August 10, 1971, in Case No. 5-CA-5155, reported in 192 N.L.R. B. No. 89. The Board has cross-petitioned for enforcement of its Decision and Order.
The basic issue involves the conduct of two of employer's supervisory personnel, who supported the Union in the election of August 6 and 7, 1969, and whether their actions denied the employees a free and uncoerced opportunity to select a collective bargaining agent. We find that the actions of these two supervisors was such as would tend to coerce employees working under their direction, and the Decision and Order of the Board must be reversed and the Board's cross-complaint for enforcement denied.
The employer is a motor carrier with ICC authority to transport freight in the area from Norfolk, Virginia to New York City. It employs approximately 25 "over the road" drivers, 18 local drivers, (who also load and unload freight) and 8 to 10 men in its shop force. The shop foreman was Garland Tebo and the warehouse foreman was E. W. Robbins. Both of these men were "supervisors" within the meaning of the Act and their advocacy of the Union cause was quite strong and unknown to the employer. The record does not support the Board's finding that they were only "minor supervisors" whose opportunities to affect the employment status of regular employees was so limited that their actions would not undermine the "laboratory conditions"1 that should surround an election.
Robbins directly supervised the 18 warehousemen and local drivers. He directed loading and unloading and the routing, breaking and sending out of local deliveries. He also checked all shortages and damages to freight. From 4:00 a. m. until 8:00 a. m. each day Robbins served as supervisor of the entire terminal in addition to his regular duties as warehouse supervisor. He had authority to hire temporary employees and set their wages, and recommend them for permanent employment. He also recommended employees for wage increases and as he testified: He had the power to recommend discharge or other disciplinary proceedings against employees and to grant employees time off.
Tebo, as shop foreman, was supervisor over 8 to 10 mechanics, helpers, lubrication and tire men. He was responsible for the maintenance of trucks and the buying of all fuel and repair parts. He recommended hiring and firing, wage increases and could impose certain discipline as well as assign overtime to the men under him.
Robbins and Tebo were supervisors of approximately fifty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit. In the election 32 employees voted for the Union and 22 voted against, with 6 votes challenged and not counted for either side. It is obvious that if the supervisors influenced only 5 or 6 votes in favor of the Union, these votes could change the result of the election.
The Board's designation of Robbins and Tebo as "minor supervisors" is not supported by the evidence or the law.2 The Act does not grade supervisors as major or minor. An individual is either a supervisor or an employee. In discussing the position of supervisors and their opportunity to coerce employees over whom they have authority, this Court clearly explained the problem in N. L. R. B. v. Heck's, Inc., 386 F.2d 317 (4th Cir. 1967):
The law is clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
J. R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...of union on the ground that conduct by union representatives had vitiated fairness of election); Turner's Express, Incorporated v. N.L.R.B. (4th Cir. 1972) 456 F.2d 289 (same); Alpers' Jobbing Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B. (8th Cir. 1976) 547 F.2d 402 (holding NLRB's election procedures failed to p......
-
Fall River Sav. Bank v. N.L.R.B., 80-1579
...this; but without evidence of any threats, express or implied, this does not compel a finding of coercion. Compare Turner's Express v. NLRB, 456 F.2d 289 (4th Cir. 1972) (foremen warned employees that they would "get tough" if the Union lost, and that anti-union employees would "pay for it"......
-
Roth v. AM. PROP. RIGHTS ASS'N FUEL OIL BUYERS GR.
...Inc., 542 F.2d 935, 938 (5th Cir.1976), cert denied, 431 U.S. 954, 97 S.Ct. 2675, 53 L.Ed.2d 271 (1977); Turner's Express, Incorporated v. NLRB, 456 F.2d 289, 292-93 (4th Cir.1972); NLRB v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 405 F.2d 1169, 1178 (2d Cir. It has been held that "mere supervi......
-
Glenmark Associates, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...that the relevant inquiry is whether authority has been delegated not whether it has been exercised) (citing Turner's Express, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 F.2d 289, 292 (4th Cir.1972)). Second, the employee's authority must promote the interest of the employer. See NLRB v. Health Care & Retirement Co......