*2 BIGGS, spondents to cease and and desist from certain Before BUFFINGTON DICKINSON, practices District labor and the Board Judges, found Circuit and unfair affecting interstate commerce Judge. the meaning of the National Labor respondents Relations Act. The do not BUFFINGTON, Judge. Circuit object to complying requirements with the La- National proposed order of paragraphs the first three the fifth and Board, as far clauses bor Relations so order, paragraph last Board’s concerned, approved. 2, 3, and 5 are object carrying pro- but do out the ap- 4 are (a) (b) of clause Sections paragraph visions of the fourth thereof for sec- from proved, approval is withheld but the reasons hereinafter forth. The set clause, which (d) of said (c) tions fourth paragraph of the order as fol- read: lows : recognition “(c) Withdraw all from “4. Take the following affirmative ac-. Pennsylvania Employees Association of tion, Board which the finds will effectuate Inc., representative Lines, Greyhound as policies of the Act: employees of employees, including their Greyhound System, for Pennsylvania “(a) Lehman, Offer to Chester Albert respondents McKelvey, Stephen purpose dealing Mitchell, with Lester Mob- wag- erley, disputes, concerning grievances, labor Rihr full immediate and John reinstatement, es, employment, or pay, hours of respectively, rates their former work; positions, prejudice without conditions of to their senior- ity rights previous- and privileges conspicuous places Post “(d) notices ly enjoyed: places of business wherein all of employees, employees of the including their “(b) Make Lehman, whole said Chester Greyhound System, Pennsylvania en- McKelvey, Stephen Albert Mitchell, Les- gaged, that so stating said Association Moberley ter Rihr any for losses John respondents re- disestablished and will pay they have suffered reason of their recognition from thereof.” frain such discharge by payment, respectively, aof majority money feels equal sum of to that which each normally (c) (d) not enforc- should wages sections have earned as dur- ing the act period ed because there no warrant from the date his charge been for such action. No election has to the date of such offer of rein- held; enjoined statement, no- computed the union been the wage rate stat- heard, but, in advance an elec- tified or ed as each rate men, prac- paid union for discharge, said all at the time of less the outlawed, purposes tical and that without which each subsequent amount earned hearing. discharge, as shown in the findings of fact: “(c) recognition Withdraw all from the Employees Association of the BIGGS, opin- Judge (concurring Circuit Greyhound Lines, Inc., ion, part). dissenting employees, including employees of Though opinion I concur in the Pennsylvania Greyhound System, for opinion extent which purpose dealing goes in the order of the enforcing Nation- grievances, concerning disputes, wag- Relations none al Labor the less I es, pay, rates employment, hours of portion opinion from that dissent of work: conditions approval withholds subsections “(d) conspicuous Post notices in places (c) (d) paragraph (4) the or- places in all of the of business wherein der. order employees, including employees of the enforced in follow- full Pennsylvania Greyhound System, en- ing petition reasons. Board filed gaged, stating that said so Association is pursuant authority this court conferred disestablished and that will re- provisions of the Act of frain recognition from thereof Congress approved July (Public - Congress, complaint 49 Stat. 74th § which the (e), (e) -160 29 U.S.C.A. to the end that alleges respondent Pennsyl- based compel the respondent court should Lines, Inc., vania corporations comply provisions with the wholly subsidiaries, op- owned owns and an order requiring transportation system erates a motorbus gaged transportation passengers transportation operations actual points urg- outside express hire interstate commerce. It is further between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and National state Greyhound Man- Labor respondent jurisdiction Relations Board had no *3 Inc., conjunction premises to act in Company, charge in the agement because no Inc., Lines, was filed existing with it on behalf of with repair and operates garage charge a and the and controls that of Penn- was on shop any employee which the motorbusses not filed behalf of Lines, Inc., respondents, the sylvania Greyhound are serv- of either of them. An repaired, the that examination charge and end of the that it iced shows purports transportation passengers by of to be filed of used for “Local No. 1063 Pa., Street, Pittsburgh, Amalgamated and the express between Association of Pennsylva- Railway state of points outside of the Electric and Motor Em- Coach ployees that alleges America, by further complaint of Ogburn, nia. Charlton The garage, Reyman, Arthur employees Pittsburgh Attorneys at the E. seven for Petition- ers,” repair the by of and that engaged in maintenance and it was verified Charlton motorbusses, of discharged Ogburn. in result There testimony were to the effect un- aiding a that joining fully the union their activities was not organized, but Division 1063 of ion known as Local there is to the that some evidence effect Street, of Amalgamated discharged the Association of the belonged men it. Em- Railway Electric and Motor Coach charge this was' the sufficient within America, respond- ployees that meaning (b) (29 section 10 of the act ents and their subsidiaries fostered U.S.C.A. (b). complaint of the § promoted union known as Board upon was based it notice Pennsylvania Greyhound Employes Lines hearing complaint duly this given was Association, interfering associa- respondents. But if there be activity in tion’s affairs connection question sufficiency proof of existence representa- elections held to select with of Local question No. 1063 that was complaint allega- with the tives. ends posed by parties by the themselves complained part on that the acts stipulation of December in which respondents violation of of the constituted joined. all It is the further contention 8, respectively, the Na- sections 7 and respondents that of the services (29 Relations Act tional Labor U.S.C.A. §§ discharged employees dispensed were 157, 158). activity not for fostering and aiding the hearings held The Board extensive union, Local No. but because of their respect charges to these and found the inefficiency in connection with certain road complaint alleged in the true. facts were vehicles, an failures because accident thereupon entered the order heretofore Warren, Ohio, had occurred at caused referred to. brakes, defective and because so much however, necessary, to consider It is work had been transferred from the Pitts- arguments respond- some detail burgh garage it was re- desirable to effect ents and the of the duce the force of The Board Board which it now seeks have this court found, however, that five of the seven men enforce. were discharged discharged who were respondents for their con- activities in argument At oral union, nection with the Local No. spondents’ urged briefs was behalf it respondents and that was an unfair labor were not em- ployers affecting interstate within the the National commerce within the terms of (29 meaning (1), Labor Relations Act U.S.C.A. section subdivision § seq.). argument (6) (7), et section of the subdivisions substance discharged persons (29 (1), (6, 7). is that the act were not em- U.S.C.A. §§ respondents, respondents It is urged or either of further them, “em- op- were of certain defense to the order term erating ample ployee” meaning subsidiaries. There within the section (3), evidence before subdivision act sustain its U.S.C.A. finding discharged (3) discharged em- were will include mainly employed by respondent ployees reg- fact have not obtained who Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., equivalent substantially employ- for ular and corporations men, subsidiary ment; benefit of en- and that the or at them, proper em- least have obtained of the Board some of supported by five ployment. The found that sufficient evidence. substan- question men had obtained contend the act employment tially equivalent sought by the Board disestablishment meaning of the act. require to dissolve Now, urged by association, say, perform court is that this not bound affirmative of dissolution. act I do not supported believe this even case. The acts testimony, adequate required unless the facts con- disestablishment respond- upon the Board in the ferring jurisdiction negative ents are in character. The re- controversy this spondents be found must withdraw their face and *4 present. the case at bar support association, be In financial court from the present. are jurisdictional facts need take respect these no action in affirmative employed were in men thereto. When the have done by respondents at shop the. pair posted maintained this and have notices to effect af- engaged in work Pittsburgh were the association will be “disestablished” in In this re- fecting interstate commerce. the sense of the order. “Disestablished” entirely anal- spect the case at seems precise bar is the just word. Here the and is the decision ogous question jurisdiction ruled again is arises and Supreme in Texas & New Or- again disposed Court the ruling the in Texas Rail- Brotherhood of Railroad Co. v. leans & New Orleans Railroad Co. v. Brother- Clerks, 548, Steamship 281 50 way & U.S. Railway Steamship Clerks, hood & su- 427, L.Ed. 1034. 74 pra. S.Ct. at hear- brought constitutionality It was a fact the No the respond- ings before the the Board that National Labor Relations Act the raised the organization remaining, ents had fostered an this case National Labor Rela- un- tions generally Laughlin sort described as Board v. & Steel Jones Em- organization, Corporation, 615, —; ion. This known as the 57 S.Ct. 81 L.Ed. the ployee Washington, Virginia Maryland Association & Coach Lines, Inc., Greyhound held the Company was v. National Labor Relations subject Board, 648, domination —; Board to be the 57 S.Ct. 81 L.Ed. Vir- Greyhound System management ginian Railway Company the System v. Fed- 592, 789, the mean- the S.Ct. 81 eration 57 L.Ed. of, act ing (5), questions subdivision all other being disposed section (29 (5). 152 The Board fur- I U.S.C.A. think that the National Labor Relations entering found that this association Board ther use the the here- order management Sys- the in referred and that court should practices support unfair labor af- position tem constituted the Board. prohibited by fecting interstate commerce (2), subdivision section section DICKINSON, (concur- District Judge (6) (7), of the act subdivisions ring part and dissenting part). (2) (6, 7), and there- U.S.C.A. § fully I in the order handed down concur that the fore ordered withdraw except particulars, two one recognition the association and may practical importance. least of little be disestablishment. give notice of its may modify or This reverse situation with which Labor findings the National Labor Relations Board Act itself law concerns is that they improp provide if found to should of disposing be some method support or are made er without sufficient of labor controversies other than that of Bowers, ing appeal evidence. Del Vecchio v. force. it is Underlying to brute 229; employee U.S. 56 S.Ct. 80 L.Ed. that the individual the conviction States, 1, 12, impotent Florida uphold bargain v. United 292 U.S. his in a end 603, 1077; employment. union, however, 54 S.Ct. 78 L.Ed. Helver In there 123, 131, Rankin, ing strength, and v. 295 U.S. 55 S.Ct. further convic- hence 732, 736, 1343; Federal organized 79 L.Ed. Trade tion that must be Corporation (C.C. anything approaching Commission v. Artloom to assure A.) 36; F.(2d) equality bargaining power Federal Trade with the em- Commis ployer. representative Company (C.C. sion v. Turner Glass must thus Hires As A.) speak organized employees, fol- F.(2d) 362. In this I think that case refused, or, if that the one both free to choose their must lows opin- findings public must made focus employer would so representative They dispute ion that nei- one chosen. merits bargain with the pen- defy expecta- party ther it. This employer may, not free if the was, however, pres- met. In dismissal, alty forbid machinery provid- ent act em- the enforcement organization nor effective representative. findings Hence is that the make its ignores its ployer power appeal judicial then as unfair the law denounces them. union activities enforce dismissal recognize employer to refusal proceeding now us. Such is before enjoins the act terms clearest em- select his own employer to right of an accept courts employment and to discontinue the support Board if in the there is for them reasons, ignored cannot for other agree that there is evidence evidence. I Act. Whether Labor recognized in the support of the Board given in a employee discharge of an proc- enforced cause, rea- or for other is for case see, however, call ess of court. made. sons, finding to be a fact than this. to do more *5 decide and question to always a delicate of the order we Translated terms one. The always difficult a almost make, making to this means the or- asked one, however, must, some found be except paragraph part of sub- der duty the Labor to the act commits b, c, paragraph 4. paragraphs 'Ofd employees right of undenied Board. The am the order ex- made accord organ- right not implies to organize to ize, cept part paragraph subparagraph decide, like- employees so if the paragraph b of 4. way. One their own organize in to wise class, including method labor paragraph 3 to I concur down form employers, to of different employees including “employees” in the the word chosen a union. fourth line. be, usually may not union such a Board, by Congress and the The act of employer not, employee of an himself findings, its as denounce unfair to leads bargains. he This with wham any or- the domination control An- recognized exist. generally to abuses employer. may ganization by the There membership limit method to organizations, several such employees of the em- organization to the may company union. The be a so-called objection urged to An ployer concerned. policy requires employer to of the law representative, chosen is that all, keep leaving its the em- hands out suffi- would such an any free to join union no union employer to independent of ciently employee may- as the individual decide. employees. interests of the up stand for the (cid:127) My objection to as drawn that, recognized It must further be open to construction it accorded full lib- every employee must be of a means condemnation union limited choice, organization of his erty join the to employees membership any equally he free by the same token must particular employer. I think the joining'any. to abstain from organiza- have the form an prob- tion, they presented only the three wish to so. The thing thus do We have employer required keep bar- confront labor —collective is that shall lems which unions, injunction requires him gaining, out of it. so-called like shops. keep organizations, leaving of all open or closed belong any organ- free Act which was The Labor join. please ization act, up- precursor present was based My objection subparagraph b impartial La- thought having on the paragraph 4 is that made merits of la- Board has pass bor Board paid sum controversy publish pro- finding which should be bor are to machinery If enforcing No nouncement. anything provided. expec- should find be awarded parties much. done law the contro- how Unless tation was what accept no control be awarded. versy over tfie
National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc.
91 F.2d 178
3rd Cir.1937Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.