Union Carbide Corporation v. NLRB
| Citation | 310 F.2d 844 |
| Decision Date | 26 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 14921.,14921. |
| Parties | UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
William C. Treanor and Henry Clifton, Jr., Buell, Clifton & Truner, New York City, for petitioner.
Elliott Moore, Atty., N. L. R. B. Washington, D. C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, James C. Paras, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before McALLISTER, WEICK and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.
Carbide has petitioned this Court to review an order of the Board entered on March 5, 1962 which found that it had violated Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U. S.C. § 151, § 158(a) (1)) and ordered that it cease and desist from threatening, interfering with and coercing employees and, further ordered that the election held on February 17, 1961 be set aside and a new election conducted. The Board answered the petition, denying the existence of any error in its order and requested enforcement thereof by this Court.
The principal error relied upon by Carbide was that the Board quoted out of context a few lines of a prepared speech delivered by either Carbide's Work Manager or his assistant in the election campaign at thirty-three meetings of groups of thirty-five to ninety employees and held that the speech constituted a threat of loss of employment and a material misrepresentation of the facts.
The questioned language, which was taken from a speech of about 2,000 words, was as follows:
In so ruling a panel of the Board, Member Leedom dissenting, reversed the Trial Examiner who had found that these words were not coercive and were not deliberately false or misleading, but substantially, correctly and accurately reported to the employees the gist of what one customer had stated.
Considering the record as a whole, we find in the speech no coercion, threat of reprisal or interference with the election. There was no misrepresentation, deliberate or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Union, United Auto., Aerospace, Agr. and Implement Workers of America v. Dana Corp.
...Bros. Co., 372 F.2d 203 (6th Cir. 1967); Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965); Union Carbide Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 310 F.2d 844 (6th Cir. 1962). [quoted in Colonial Corp. v. NLRB, 427 F.2d 302, 306 (6th Cir. Furthermore, the question whether an employer's anti-un......
-
Surprenant Manufacturing Company v. N. L RB
...than a threat on the part of the employer to visit such consequences upon the employees in the event of unionization. Union Carbide Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 310 F.2d 844, C.A. 6th; N.L. R.B. v. Transport Clearings, Inc., 311 F.2d 519, 523-524, C.A. The facts in this case are very similar to those......
-
GPD INC. v. NLRB
...in the event of unionization." Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965). See also, Union Carbide Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 310 F. 2d 844 (6th Cir. 1962). In determining that Tracy's statements were illegal threats, the Board relied on International Union of Elec. Workers......
-
JS Dillon & Sons Stores Co. v. NLRB, 7608.
...employee, unless it indicates a course of conduct, may not be justification for a finding of an 8(a) (1) violation. Union Carbide Corp. v. NLRB, 6 Cir., 310 F.2d 844; NLRB v. Mississippi Products, Inc., 5 Cir., 213 F.2d 670, 674; NLRB v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc., 9 Cir., 290 F.2d The statements ......