National Labor Relations Board v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co.

prac- by plaintiff also exhibited for a At argument, the time of oral counsel advantage of for plaintiff, by tical demonstration of the motion with certain forming body portion attached, the exhibits pad or called our attention to protector ma- single piece hand fact that of a letters two had been received by Court, dispense terial so as to use of Clerk of per- written time, employed by insert At that sons whose names in were mentioned Jensen. plaintiff device, cause, trial of argued his as concerning wit- but who were not By nesses. sought these follows: letters it was deny charges by certain or statements rightfully “It said that from cannot be plaintiff directed at the authors thereof. patent shown in the construction writing course, letters, of these shown blank as formation of the Jensen improper, and, circumstances, under some obvious, application in this would be might be termed is inexcusable. There pad constructing the from that the reason nothing here, however, to indicate that in ma- single is more economical blank parties such intended to interfere in mak- economical terial as well as more orderly Justice, administration of aor up pad. Appreciating the advan- ing proper Furthermore, decision of the case. body pad portion or tages having there nothing is contained the letters single protector of a the hand constructed relevancy has theory up- applicant required design blank this on which the case has been decided. purpose, for the particular form of blank pat- decree of the obviously granted a District dis- he should be Court missing complaint the bill of protect improvement advance want ent to ”* * * equity is affirmed. in the art. evidently argument convinced the This grant Office, is evidenced Patent as patent suit. structure, charged to Defendant’s true, to that quite similar is infringe, it is distinguished, It is by plaintiff. disclosed NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD formed it is fact that however, REED & v. PRINCE MFG. CO. stapled on material pieces of separate two No. 3549. piece folded of one edges instead opposite edge disclosed on one stapled Appeals, Court Circuit First Circuit. testimony to the is There plaintiff. April 2, 1941. two-piece defend device of effect that advantages one- Writ of Certiorari Denied June over the has some 1941. ant just as there is plaintiff, piece device 85 L.Ed. n —. See 61 S.Ct. one-piece effect that testimony advantages over plaintiff has device is at two-piece device Jensen. plaintiff apparent once attempting, at the position of unfortunate traveling time, horses to ride two same (cid:127) argument em directions. opposite- his Examiner to obtain

ployed before glove e., the disclosure of patent —i. single piece material made from con improvement, defeats his patentable by defendant’s infringement tention of pieces of material. two glove made from a similar considered sit This court Cir., Corp., Glove Gillian uation here, conclude We E.2d no there is occasion to de case, that validity. By the ar issue of termine however, which induced the issu gument, plain, think, patent, it is so we ance infringement. there no Gross, C. Washington, A. D. Ernest Watts, Lau- (Charles Fahy, Robert B. Barrett, Knapp, rence A. Richard C. Wilson, Washington, D.

Thomas F. all of C., brief), for the Board. Mason, Worcester, Mass. George H. of Esty, Clark, Jr., (Jay Vaughan, Clark Mass., Crotty, Worcester, on the & all of brief), Mfg. & Co. for Reed Prince MAHONEY, MAGRUDER Before McLELLAN, Judges, Dis- Circuit Judge. trict MAHONEY, Judge. Circuit upon pe This is before this case court National Relations tition Labor Order Board for the enforcement of an respondent pursuant against issued Re 10(c) Labor Section National Act, (1935), 49 Stat. 453 29 U.S. lations jurisdiction 160(c). The C.A. § 10(e) Section court is derived from same statute. Prince respondent, Reed & corporation Company, is Manufacturing City located in the of Worcester Massachusetts, Commonwealth manufacture, dis engaged in the sale and nuts, In its

tribution bolts and screws. that was answer the admitted commerce. re engaged in interstate approximately pro spondent employs employees. There and maintenance duction question but can be no subject National Labor Relations to the Act, seq. 151 et National 29 U.S.C.A. § Dyeing Relations Board v. Bradford Labor Association, 1940, 1226; Re National Labor Laughlin & Steel Board v. lations Jones 81 L. Corp., U.S. La A.L.R. Ed. Somerset Shoe Board v. bor Relations Cir., 1940, 111 F.2d November, Workers the Steel O., of the C. I. Committee Organizing Union, charge filed a called hereinafter charge the National amended and an alleging that Relations Board Labor un- guilty been of various had refusal to including practices fair collectively Union as Act, 2(5) 29 U.S.C.A. majority Section § representative of a authorized maintenance employees, (5), production, and that the production and maintenance excluding employees, shipping discouraged mem- and room had interfered with and employees,con- supervisory clerical discriminated and had bership in the Union pur- appropriate refusing rein- stituted unit for the against four poses bargaining within collective of union activities. state them because Act, U. 9(b) complaint meaning notice of Section Board issued its findings 159(b). Board made filed an answer S.C.A. hearing, § and the therewith, basis inter- and on engaged accordance admitting testimony la- concluded that denying unfair of all the state commerce representative practices held Union was the exclusive alleged. hearing A bor Massachusetts, the unit for Worcester,' beginning in all within purposes bargaining within December, 1937, collective trial examiner. before a 9(a). The Board found Section hearing At the close of the thereafter, réfusing on June re intermediate trial examiner filed an respondent had bargain with the respond port in which he found that the practices within engaged unfair labor (3) (5)1 8(1), ent violated Section 8(5). The Board Section meaning Act, and of the National Labor en- respondent had found that the further remedy entry recommended of an order to by inter- practices gaged unfair labor Exceptions were filed these violations. its with, coercing fering restraining and upon report argument held an oral and guaran- rights employees in exercise of 1939, May Board. On before the 7, 29 in Section U.S.C.A. § teed to them up and order the Board issued its decision 8(1) of violated Section and thus had except in the holding trial examiner Act. Board also found The Mr. matter of his refusal to allow John Roy discharge refusal to reinstate and of em son behalf of 547 to intervene on Gallant, Stevens, Jr., Michael Sul- Clifford ployees signed contracts who had individual Mary Sullivan, following the livan and strike, examiner respondent. trial re- discriminated in on of had allowed the intervention behalf employ- of and tenure gard to hire these employees. As interests five of employees violated thus these and ment of identical with the re five were those of 8(3) the Act. section of fully employees, rights maining represented by Johnson, error and the therefore, re ordered Board, wise examiner could in no be con un spondent cease and desist from its enforce the sidered sufficient order refuse collectively practices, bargain fair labor justified. otherwise the Board if of notify employee each with the into as contracts entered testimony trial examiner individual before the practices were dispute labor voluminous, little its unfair a result of there effect, rein and offer except and conclusions and of no inferences void as to employees mentioned re- the four therefrom. The statement to _ that could drawn re Order of the Board is spondent admitted that above. It this Order produced in meaning of the footnote.2 organization labor within 2 “Order. 158]. an. shall be [§ “Section employer— practice “Upon findings for an unfair the basis of the above pur- with, restrain, “(1) of and conclusions of law and or fact interfere co- To 10(c) to Section suant in the exercise erce Act, rights guaranteed the National Labor [157 in section 7 hereby Relations Board orders that title]. respondent, Manufactur- Reed & Prince V *1* Massachusetts, ing Company, Worcester, regard By “(3) hire discrimination successors, officers, agents, any and its employment or term or tenure or asigns encourage shall: employment or condition any membership discourage Cease and desist from: “1. labor or- Discouraging membership ganization: “(a) in Steel Organizing Committee Workers Iron, Amalgamated collectively Steel “(5) Association To refuse to America, representatives employees, of North Local & Tin Workers of his any organization provisions 9(a) subject or in other of Section to the by discriminating employees, in re- [159(a) title].” § 29 U.S.C.A. s, 5). employ- gard or hire tenure to their Co., 1940, man S.Ct. en- S. S. to have here seeks 704; Edison Consolidated L.Ed. forced. Co. v. Relations National Labor It is if the now well settled that U.S. hy findings supported Board’s of fact are we examining L.Ed. 126. In the record they binding upon substantial evidence are infer- must and all consider the evidence this court. Section National Labor 10(e), favorably to arising ences most therefrom Act; may Opposing National Labor Relations the Board. evidence Board v. 85 be if it conflicts with other evi- Link-Belt considered -, January 6, may L.Ed. Na- dence and fair inferences. This court decided pass credibility tional Labor on the nor Relations Board Water- witnesses any “(e) Roy Stevens, ment or other term or condition of Make whole Harold Jr., employment;. Gallant, Clifford A. Michael Sulli- C. van, Mary any any Sullivan, “(b) P. giving loss to the manner effect pay may they have suffered reason contract or contracts between executed respondent’s refusal to reinstate and its or some them, payment July 13, thereafter, to each of them of a of them money equal sum of described, to that which he hereinbefore or to other normally wages agreement would concerning wages, have earned as contract or respondent’s hours, working from the date of the refusal conditions which it him, may produc- to reinstate date of such offer entered into with its reinstatement, earnings of during tion, shipping less his net maintenance room em- period; however, ployees deducting, excluding super- said them, or visory employees, rep- from the amount otherwise due each of and clerical or the employees moneys said received resentative of such other than during period per- him Organizing said for work Steel or Workers Committee any Federal, Amalgamated State, county, Iron, formed on municipal Association of Steel projects, America, & work-relief Tin Workers North Local pay 1315, respect over pay, wages, the amount so deducted to the in to rates of agency employment Federal, State, fiscal of the coun- hours of or other conditions ty, municipal government gov- employment; or other or of supplied ernments which the funds .for “(c) Refusing collectively bargain projects; said work-relief Organizing with Steel Workers Commit- Personally, “(d) representative writing inform in tee as the exclusive each of its production, maintenance, shipping of its who has and entered into employees, supervisory one or more of the room described in exclusive of contracts paragraph 1(b) Order, employees; of and and this that such clerical pursuant contracts were entered into “(d) interfering In other manner practices meaning unfair labor within with, restraining coercing the or its em- Act, of ployees the Labor Relations rights in the of exercise void, such contracts null and join are and form," self-organization, or assist contracts will such therefore be discon- bargain organizations, labor collective- employ- ly tinued as a term or through representatives condition of their own enforced; ment and will in no manner be choosing engage and to in concerted activ- purpose Immediately post “(e) ities for the of collective bar- notices in con- gaining protec- spicuous places throughout plant, or other mutual aid or its and tion, guaranteed period in Section of7 the maintain such for notices sixty days, stating (60) National Labor Relations Act. consecutive respondent following the will cease and “2. Take the desist in ac- affirmative (b), (c), 1(a), the manner in set forth tion which the Board will and finds effectuate (d), policies and that it will Act: take affirmative 2(a), (c) (b), action forth Upon request bargain set “(a) collectively Order; this Organizing with Steel Workers Commit- representative Notify “(f) Regional as the exclusive tee its Director production, maintenance, shipping Region writing the First within ten employees, supervisory days (10) room exclusive of from the date of this Order employees; steps respondent and clerical what has taken to comply Roy “(b) Stevens, Jr., herewith. Offer to Harold Gallant, Sullivan, A. Clifford Midhael C. “And it is further ordered that Mary hereby Complaint is, be, P. Sullivan immediate and full and it dismissed alleges reinstatement stantially to their former far it or sub- so that the equivalent practices positions, engaged in unfair labor without has prejudice meaning seniority 8(2) to their and other. within of Section of the rights privileges; Act.” -, No- 72, 83, testimony. decided 61 S.Ct. sufficiency L.Ed. weight of the 12, v. Water- vember 1940. National Labor Relations Board Co., supra, page at man S. 309 U.S. S. subsequently whether We will consider Na- page at 84 L.Ed. S.Ct. majority em- the defection of a Elkland tional Board v. the result of the Union was ployees 1940, 114 F.2d Cir., Leather practices, unfair no such such but denied, certiorari November contrary majority July was claimed until -; N. cf. Texas & according the earliest the uncon- Ry. Clerks, 1930, Railway O. testimony. tradicted All but the last of 558-560, L.Ed. upon predicates incidents which the Board light, we Considering the evidence finding that the refused supports believe facts found that it bargain collectively with the Union took the Board. place prior during and thus date period undisputed when Bargain. The Refusal to representative Union exclusive organization had Before no employees. supports If evidence respondent’s plant, been active at the finding bargain refusal to with the February, in the the Union middle clearly refusal to membership among commenced a drive representatives with the respondent’s employees. was evi There 8(5) within Section Act. opening dence between the membership Union ginning and the be drive middle re- of March Union respond negotiations quested a conference 19, 1937, ent March eligible employees of 782 out bargaining agree- discuss a collective designated in the unit request, ment. The and ing granted the signed designating cards Union negotiations sign- resulted representative. as their Later em other preliminary agreement aof on March ployees joined. checked 19, recognized Union as col- signatures agreed the teen were that all but six bargaining agency lective for such genuine. Thus no there can be respondent’s employees as were members doubt of the of the Board’s correctness agreement provided of the for a Union. finding that on and after March increase, per wage a 40- cent 12% designated representa Monday Friday, hour work week from majority tive of a eight-hour day. provided It also unit. National Labor Relations Board v. further conferences later than Ass’n, Dyeing supra, 310 Bradford U.S. at April negotiate agree- to final a written pages 339, 340, page 60 S.Ct. at 84 L. rates, working conditions, ment on hours, wage Ed. 1226. adjudication and the method for the disputes arising of under the La- contract. respondent dispute The does not meetings April 28, May ter held on finding of insists as March that 11 and and a draft final of a con- majority the Union later lost its when by tract submitted the basis of discussion. the Union was taken as many repudiated of its it and members signed individual contracts with re the spondent. only April to show The Board found until The evidence the that very cordial relations repudiation subsequent had existed between Union the to parties the following two but that on and signatures March 19 was the on the “back- petitions, respondent with great to-work” which we will deal that date the hostility delay showed If, found, tendency as the Board these con Union and a later. to the to prac negotiations by and hinder long tracts were the result unfair part respondent, they pre- the discussion over trivial tices on of the and sometimes destroy viously agreed upon respond- cannot are invalid and ity the author The details. representative change of the Union as the ent admitted a attitude but (cid:127) majority employees. it was due the National claimed to conduct of the the Walsh, Dyeing organizer, Board v. ordering Labor Relations Bradford Union Mr. Ass’n, supra; change National Licorice Co. v. Na certain to their hours Board, 1940, employment, by to the tional U. of authorization the 799. See of a strike in event the S. Machinists negotiations Association of failed to reach successful International conclusion, lack of and to confidence Labor

8S1 part respondent beginning on hectic that generated events of C.I.O. April with 28 and con- Board, however, the conference of The found period. May through partly tinuing related the last conference of change in attitude was 19, the Board did find refusal to bar- characters appearance of two new to upon prior gain part con- lawyer on who the scene. By May agree- to tentative on behalf negotiations ducted June the Union replaced by partner, ment had been between his reached wages matters of Clark, and on Jay latter thereafter Mr.' The' Jr. re- minor details. There and hours and some negotiations with conducted the yet agreement respond- was as no on what the Union suggestion spondent. On his parts proposed Gallagher, who considered be vital F. to ent hired Mr. Charles contract, e., seniority grievance i. “Labor Counsel described himself as Industry”. proposed show alien clauses. Union There evidence to working equal standing be- Gallagher, union members Mr. should have that thereafter scenes, strategy determining preference for with citizens conceived hind lay-offs employment during while re- in its relations spondent citizenship quoted significant should be insisted Union. The Board might an writ- following article factor which it consider. extract magazine: proposed in a Gallagher trade the arbitration ten also impartial umpire disputes to be se- today meth- “A labor demands new crisis agreement, nego- if lected mutual direct skillfully quickly organizing ods respondent claimed tiations failed. The capital public opinion un- —methods grievances should be that settlement of left recently proud in- til has been too too entirely management and that ar- accept. Force bloodshed different deprive illegally courts bitration would entirely unnecessary; the thick- are also jurisdiction Labor of their guards, provocative private de- headed deny the its constitutional tectives, questionable characters of all upon proposals which no rights. Other types, practice the ‘Art of so-called who agreement had been reached related strong Breaking’. Instead of Strike these holidays, plant union access men, swings into armed a scientific staff adjustment inequalities delegate, pay facts, organize present action production minimum standards. rates and opinion, against public defend business stenographic report May 19 Spot news the attacks of labor racketeers. great antagonism conference shows men, reporters, men, men wire statistical unwillingness compromise any point on headquarters. Govern- land at the strike part respondent, but there ment, Federal, and Local laws and State complete impasse indication that a no requirements tips, finger are at their fact, arrangements had been reached. Every telephone. the end con- or at of a negotiations. were made to continue the planned; military strategy ference warring carefully armies is no more disposition The Union showed some big prepared than of a dis- industrial yield disputed on various sections of the pute. cooperation given Full the nation- contract. There is evidence to show that press. al local asked. and No favors are it considered arbitration clause be to the* newspapers is wanted the is news What important contract, the most section in its They strategy get truth. it. and the The frequently accepted been and it had watched, opponent carefully companies respondent. other similar to the many cases pre-diagnosed. checked in respondent Though the claims that attacked; points points strong Weak are any Union would on retreat the dis- strong for defense or call a counter of- items, puted and was as recalcitrant as it- fense.” self, both as to the arbitration clause and factor, was citizenship evidence there say was for It the Board to whether a show that the was to Union anxious to be strategy so conceived was of a indicative conciliatory and several times to offered willingness employer’s part nego- on the to concessions on both clauses. make good rep- tiate faith with the chosen employees resentative of his genuine in a conference, May At the close of the effort to differences resolve and arrive at requested the Union a redraft of the con- agreement. a collective negotiated. far Mr. tract so Clark said spite distinctly “by it showing evidence a could be sent to Union Wednes- uncooperative Maybe Tuesday”. day obstructionist attitude sure. The Union The practice. caused an unfair Saturday, wanted Mr. Clark refused it expressly un- right Act promise plans. leaves the to strike to of week-end because affected, employees Tuesday any The draft had on remedies not arrived destroyed by remaining had on May 25, called a were not morning, and the May respondent strike. If after pursuance previous author- strike aof it vio- refused to proved negotiations ization in the event 8(5) and is sub- lated Section of the Act unsatisfactory. The Union considered that ject Board as will deliberately to such orders of the respondent delaying was policy Black effectuate the of the Act. day negotiations. an incom- Later Corp. Labor Re- S. S. National plete Diamond of a from draft contract was received Cir., 1938, F.2d lations agreed Mr. Clark. It contained items denied, 1938, certiorari U.S. upon plus proposals respondent to of the 82 L.Ed. agreed. which the Union had not accompanying letter draft insisted Although the Union had called strike a typed purely courtesy been out of it had May 25, abandon on it did not thereafter and was not to considered as the sub- be satisfactory con- its efforts arrive at a to respondent. mission of contract respondent. purpose tract with requested The letter further the Union to attempt an to force the of the strike why give equal state its reason it desired to respondent agreement with to come to respondent treatment to aliens. necessary thought be- Union and point, very strongly claimed to feel on this of the cause the reluctance though personnel manager its own testified seriously attempt negotiate to discuss or always been a minor considera- any disputed questions. There company. tion with the up the time evidence to show respondent, agree- though the strike the day Thus matters on the stood matters, ing with Union on some necessary strike. At this time it disposition to consider showed no position legal parties examine the disputed seriously other items continuing obliga order to understand the requiring complete point view than- tions toward the Union. part surrender on the the Union employees ceased work a conse However, respondent. proposals of quence of and connection with current calling the Union after of the strike dispute 2(9)3 in Section as defined separate three distinct efforts made Act, thus remained reopen negotiations with the 2(3).4 of Section meaning within negotiated agreement try reach striking retained Since the with it. the Union continued status and since employees, majority 5, 1937, Bernard, represent On June obligated legally Depart remained conciliator of the United States jointly bargain with Union. ment of Labor conferred to continue to respondent. Mackay Mr. Bernard Union and the Board v. agreement prob that an could suggested Telegraph Radio & ably reached if the would Na be proposal arbitration. There accept Somerset Relations Board v. tional Labor show the Union pages 688. was evidence to Co., supra, 111 F.2d at Shoe willing recede from its this time was necessary strike is not particular of a em- ited to the 152]. When used in 2 [§ “Section explicitly [chapter] ployer, Act unless the ti- 151 to [sections Act * * * otherwise, shall include states tle]— dispute’ has as a whose work ceased “(9) includes individual ‘labor The term with, consequence of, concerning controversy in connection any terms, or tenure dispute any employment, or current because of or concern- of or conditions any practice, representation who has ing unfair of or association the any regular fixing, negotiating, other persons obtained sub- maintain- not stantially equivalent arrange seeking employment, changing, hut ing, terms or to any regardless employment, include individual em- not shall of or conditions agricultural ployed laborer, disputants an as or in the the stand whether of any family employer of or proximate domestic service and em- the relation of any person home, at or individual ployee.” his spouse.” by parent employed ‘employee’ or “(3) his shall in- The term any employee, lim- and shall be clude up conference, Mr. Bernard walking delegate for would broke the demands who attributing press issued a plant, have the the to and also for statement to access the respond- citizenship negotiations senior the failure of withdrawal of to ent, proposed Furthermore, asserting that com- ity proposed clause. pany legal contract leave no redress grievance specific provision would clause made any employee adjustment of seeking an jurisdiction Labor Board. for the any grievance courts of Massa- respondent flatly sign because the refused to jurisdiction in labor by it chusetts would have no proposed other than one on contract 3, except discharge matters proposals known which contained case June employee objectionable an for union highly to be the Union. of activities. to addition, provid Board that this statement of law was found it contained clause completely ing though found “during the continuance this that accurate thereof, jurisdiction agreement, any at courts have or extension or that the would no employee grievances, future, time in and over normal as the subject agree they request usually the discre- Union will not matter within shop employer. tion agreement or took demand either closed system (Italics advantage check-off so-called”. this statement demand to ours.) provision tele- Such a have tied recall of Mr. Bernard in an abusive would Labor, gram Secretary the hands the Union for all time to come to the which was efficacy impaired press respondent. thus would released to bargaining having described him agency; as a collective the It issued “unwar- ranted, biased, illegal against clause would have been untrue and false state- Act, policy expressed public gov- in ments” and intimated that he and the allowing bar ernment it forestalled future themselves to collective upon gaining “frequent part matters which were made scheme defraud its em- subjects negotiation employers ployees. between withdrew Mr. Bernard thereafter employees.” National negotiations. Co. v. Licorice from the supra National Labor Relations 9, again attempted On the Union June 350, 60 U.S. S.Ct. 84 L.Ed. 799]. [309 negotiate a settlement. On date respondent upon Insistence such an Golden, Regional Mr. Director of the impossible provision warranted the Board Reed, respondent’s wrote Mr. inferring point and there private president, asking a conference be after the was not actuated try of them to “an tween the two obtain any genuine explore possibili desire to mutually satisfactory honorable and basis reaching repre ties of an accord with the present controversy.” The letter employees, upon sentative extremely conciliatory and made no de contrary contriving bring about a Though the letter was mands of kind. final breakdown bargaining of collective “personal copies marked and confidential” negotiations under circumstances in which of were distributed respondent might plausibly “place the odi employees as well as Mr. Reed’s all its upon rupture” um of the Union. National summarily answer thereto. answer This Rand, Remington Labor Inc., Cir., 1938, v. rejected request negotiation 94 F.2d certiorari insulting terms. couched most denied, attempting to force accused the cf. National Labor Rela contract, sign illegal Express Publishing tions Board motives, having desiring and of ulterior modified, Cir., F.2d decree employees down river”. to “sell our —, L.Ed. March decided only possible The letter also stated 3, 1941. accept way settle the strike was to company nego- refusal contract which the of June already signed.5 terms of a further contract officers had tiate say you only answer, want an honorable and Gold- “You loss. That’s the Mr. * * * really mutually satisfactory you end contract. This en. If want only you people Golden, strike, there is third time all use the Mr. one Very Company well, Golden, The contract has ‘honorable’. answer. word agent mutually your signed all local O.I.O. to do contains the clauses instruct upon bargaining. agreed him want to in collective It what our do. by company already signed Sign us. All it contract the al- needs the has alleged permit many signature representa- ready signed, of the and our em- the employees ployees our on it.” return to work without further tives of to S8á propaganda, negotiate and attempted to inferential interference The Union then

with Massa- and through the the coercion. and chusetts Arbitration State Board of stated, As has been 3 the re June Conciliation, repre- the and on spondent executed June and submitted the to of sentatives Union and the the obviously unacceptable par Union an and met with that Board. The Union offered tially illegal proposed contract. This was any part of to leave the entire contract or accompanied by inflammatory letter up agreed by it to be drawn the Board and employees which was and distributed the to al- sign any such contract. Mr. Walsh to obviously designed consumpt was for their willing stated so that the Union would be ion.6 then on its efforts bent From upon by accept agreed the to arbitrators influencing employees to Union to its to force the desig- company persons and the Union or accept that and other. contract no Worcester, by Mayor a nated mittee of com- the The launched a blatant also college presidents or various of campaign against abuse and the Union judges courts. The of the Massachusetts leaders, coupled suggestions its to its parties ar- State informed the that Board employees proper as to the for them course extremely bitration clauses been found had through to follow. This done was customary in useful and collective con- articles, mimeographed medium of bul- however, flatly re- respondent, tracts. The letins, cartoons, reprints correspondence, jected any provision sort and of arbitration copies given and radio address cap- quite informed the that it was respondent’s president. All of these were writing able of contracts. At its own published employees. distributed to the and meeting Union’s at- conclusion campaign primarily at dis- The was aimed torney proposed negotiations, further and eyes crediting its mem- the Union Mr. the outcome had enjoin refused as desired to await Clark he bers, by outright which was done abuse equity he suit which name-calling, by Union describing to instituted the state court order un-American”, as “alien insist- strike. money only ing was interested that 15, Mayor July About of Worcester to from the which would take able Union, request at the induce to tried in union dues and assessments. workers negotiate. sugges- the tion was This to Throughout publications all ran more rejected ground on the also that only way openly the that the back or less theme majority employees at that time a employees get work was for the had returned to work under individual em- accept company the Union to to force ployment contracts with the only thinly The threat was veiled contract. repudiated had the Union. acceptance contract that was a that qua reemployment. The re- non sine partly upon It is the evidence of these charge spondent also reiterated attempts negotia- four to secure further following the was wishes Union majority the Board found re- tions that seeking members but was of its spondent guilty of was a refusal bar- own interest at ex- advance collectively gain with the Union. The pense. denying intention to While found further evidence refus- Board al during ways interfere, respondent suggested good faith in that all employees force Union to for time, the Union while was respondent’s accept the terms and solicited negotiations, attempting spondent, reopen re- regarding from the letters guidance under Mr. Gal- strike. lagher, engaged in a deliberate was effort undermine the the this entire cam- the Union and Board found that influence merely expression paign to abandon it and bow to was not respondent’s opinions attempted respondent’s purpose This for will. name, manoeuvres, open good through defending various subtle as claimed provided grievance respondent’s informed misled the contract em- wage adjustment procedure ployees, disliked citizens desired to previously specifically rejected been exalt aliens. further stated that plant present” respond- “for the Union. No access to the law forced the delegate pay and no to deal with a Union holi- ent many days provided. unsolicited letters they request agree future showed desired the never Union to system. shop accept company or check-off closed contract. declared the O.I.O. mis- letter

885 justification' or lack believe at- respondent, a but was deliberate Na relevant. justification the strike is for and interfere tempt break the Union to Mackay Board v. right Labor Relations employees tional in their with and coerce its supra, 304 U.S. Corp., Telegraph & the Radio self-organization relieve in order to 910, 344, page 82 L.Ed. 58 at page at necessity further respondent from the consequence of a inwas 1381. strike Labor Relations bargaining. See National thus, pointed dispute supra, 94 current Rand, Inc., Remington Board v. employees. above, remained out the strikers page F.2d 870. obligation to respondent is under an following respondent, representative its em bargain with the strike, bound legally beginning of the was bargain ployees. If Union desires sincerely negotiate with confer previous collectively notwithstanding de representatives employees. It was of its may respondent not refuse. linquencies, the open mind and required to with an do so Rem Board v. Labor Relations National agreement reach an sincere desire to pages Rand, Inc., supra, F.2d at ington 94 amity cooperation. The spirit reason to believe was no 873. There obligation setting are forth this cases con requested, if negotiations a mere many, is well settled that it faith, might have led good not ducted in bargaining pretence formal collective at' nego though prior settlement, even without completely with a mind and closed Jeffrey- been successful. tiations had not co-operation spirit good faith Labor v. National DeWitt Insulator Co. duty., E.g., M. of this not a fulfillment Cir., 1937, F.2d Board, 4 Relations 139, H. Ritzwoller v. National Labor Relations a strike presence of If in the 140. 432; Cir., 1940, National 114 F.2d obligation to bar employer could avoid the Labor Board v. Shoe Somerset Relations use by gain declaring further efforts to be Co., supra; National Relations Labor pur of its less, largely fail Act would Co., supra; Express Board v. Publishing pose. Labor Relations Board v. Whit National further contended that the It is 474; Co., Cir., 1940, tier Mills 111 F.2d statutory respondent was relieved National Labor Relations Board v. Gris repre duty bargain with the Union as Co., Cir., Mfg. 1939, 106 wold F.2d fhe because sentative of Mills Labor Cotton v. National Globe considered by the Union was strike called Board, Cir., 1939, F.2d 91. illegal purpose. be for an state law While it is true Act does respondent against brought by a suit require reaching agreement, of an Court, sitting at Superior strikers the the Worcester, National Labor Relations Board v. Jones enjoined July on Laughlin Corp., supra, & Steel 301 U.S. at prosecution of on the the strike further page page 628, 57 S.Ct. at purpose illegal in was ground that its 108 A.L.R. there abundant sign employer sought to force the evidence before the Board from which it compulsory “substituting arbitra contract could find that refused easy It is not process law.” tion due for bargain collectively representa theory which this to understand employees by specifically tives reject based; Massachu conclusion was ing proffered opportunities negotiation, prop support cited setts decisions by seeking authority to undercut distinguishable on us osition seem to representative Union as of its McNeil, Engraving Co. v. facts. Folsom by going through the motions of bar N.E, 479; Rey 1920, 235 Mass. gaining complete with a absence of the Davis, 1908, N. 198 Mass. nolds v. good required by faith the statute. The However, L.R.A.,N.S., E. properly held to have vio Court, Superior the decree of the view of lated 8(5) Section of the Act. purposes may, perhaps, for we case, required to assume the Massachu claims that it was be as obligation relieved there indicated. But setts law to col because, have been tortious lectively suming with strike the Union as serted, law, strikers remained unjustifiably the strike was common called state latter, since the negotiations pro while consequence gressing. change of or connec temper Whether strike dispute. and attitude a current See manifested tion § Act, supra. provocation constituted substantial 2(3), for the decide, provoked by strike, having been we need not The strike we do not 886 employees the in practice, they antecedent unfair were the unit whether employer Union' proceeded fill the members could to or not. the Thereafter places negotiations proceeded Na of the strikers other men. with with this under- Mackay standing, tional Labor which in Relations Board v. meant that the Union effect Telegraph Co., supra. bargaining employees & Radio for all re the spondent however, in this, Golden, the but con unit. When regional did not do Mr. as tinued to director of employees treat the the its wrote to the re- strikers as spondent on stampede asking exerted 9 bargain- itself to the em for a June ployees ing conference, expressed back he hope to work. “the that See Stewart Die way may Casting Corp. be v. National found to effect an Labor Relations honorable Board, Cir., 1940, 849, 856, 7 settlement controversy of the 114 our F.2d between organization January representing employees certiorari your denied 61 S.Ct. your company”. (Italics 85 ours.) L.Ed.-. In In these circumstances rejecting proffer respondent find nothing we in the did the Act which relieves employer ground not take the the obligation that the the Union was to bar gain bargaining collectively proper behalf employees with its of the through unit. representative. Under chosen the circumstances the correctly held that there was no merit in An argument by additional respond- the point respond- technical raised the ent is that because the Union at the out- afterthought ent as an to excuse its refusal set insisted on bargaining for its own mem- bargain representatives to with the only bers and not for employees, all the employees. respondent was relieved obliga- of the tion of bargaining with the Union. Accordingly, paragraphs 1 2 (c) and (a) of the Board’s Order will be enforced. It is true that where a or Union other The Nullification of Contracts agent bargaining has been selected Respondent. majority employees with the appro an priate unit, employer’s statutory duty The Board found further “back- bargain is to with the chosen union as the subsequent to-work” movement representative employ exclusive all employees contracts between the individu- ees in the (5), (a), unit. 9 §§ ally and the the results of Act, supra. employer respond- practices the unfair labor (5) would be in violation of Section 8 if interfering employees. with its Ac- ent only he recognizing insisted on the Union cordingly, paragraphs (b) (d) representing bargain as its members and giving ordered the cease ef- to ing on that basis. National Licorice Co. v. signed contracts indi- fect Board, supra, National Labor Relations employees vidual so-called collective page page U.S. at agreement by attaching executed L.Ed. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Co. v. company employees’ signatures contract the Board, Cir., National Labor Relations petitions, on the “back-to-work” and or- 1940, 114 F.2d 930. So if the Union de notiqes posting dered the to the effect accept responsibility clines to as ex these contracts were null and void. representative employees clusive all portions believe We these of the order to unit, only bargaining and insists on proper. members, employer for its own would called, After the strike was the refusal commit no violation of refusing the Act in bargain with on that basis. required coupled Union as law with authority the case at bar the Union on effort to discredit the an April representative employees submitted Union as a basis of discussion repudiate a draft contract and to force the separate Union described itself acting arrangements Union and make only. respond company. on behalf its members Three weeks after the early objected respondent’s at one of began ent conferences strike unfair labor score, apparently practices began

on this and after some discussion bear fruit. point employees, an understanding sought two reached that On June designated Johnson, attorney, the Union would be in getting the con aid of representing They tract as its own they them back work. said be- give majority would notice lieved a wished provisions sign company signed contract contract. After with to un- attempts gain support would be extended to all the successful Relations respond- orice Co. v. National Labor accept the the Union a vote Na- Board, contract, sug- supra; Mfg. Co. frequently American ent’s a manoeuvre tional Labor gested respondent, by the “back-to-work” af- petitions declaring a de- U.S. were circulated 61; National firming Cir., 1939, authorizing the 106 F.2d sire to return to work and Leather Elkland Labor Board v. signers the signatures annexation of the Rail- Ry. v. supra; evi- Texas & O. company the There was cf. contract. N. company way Clerks, acceptance supra. dence that the the necessary condi- contract was considered a Paragraphs (d) of the Order (b) and work, returning and it was sa tion of suggested (d), how- Paragraph will be enforced. preceding petition the in the ever, follows: to read as must amended literature. its writing each of “Personally inform in into one or employees has entered who having of these Clark been informed in para- described more of the contracts negotiations, with the em- refused to deal Order, such con- graph ‘(b) of this that ployees pe- majority signed until had the a in violation tracts were entered into By July 12, signed. majority titions. a Act, and the National Labor Relations rejected opportunity Mr. Walsh sign a final offer, longer respondent will no that the company the contract on behalf of solicit, continue, into, enforce or at- enter signatures the upon there- were its tempt with to enforce such contracts plant annexed to contract. The prejudice to employees; is without but this reopened Thereafter, July ad- on 14. any by employees le- the assertion gal rights signatures affixed, though ditional were may acquired they under Board found that this was the result of a v. National Licorice Co. such contracts.” part signers desire on not Board, supra, 309 apart the'majori- have themselves set ty from page pages 366, 60 S.Ct. at U.S. at eyes in the than rather L.Ed. accept a wish to the contract. The Discrimination in Reinstatement. The contract to these Next, that contends signatures were attached was in no sense finding employ of the Board that four product bargaining. collective Nei ees were denied reinstatement because of any negotiations ther had there been be by supported union was activities not company tween individuals and evidence. The that claims to the terms of the contract. Further justified reinstating not the four more, this contract contained the offensive employees guilty of a and was violation provision, already to, alluded requiring the (3) of Section 8 Act. asserts for employees agree that neither individu the Board erred or these reasons dering ally they nor as members union would employees reinstatement request time in future a granting pay and the to them of back from shop agreement closed or the check-off. reinstate. It is our the date of refusal to opinion making stipulation, of such a as a Order of the Board that the employment, condition of was itself an un regard should be enforced. practice imposed fair labor a re upon employees straint in the exercise instance, July 12, respondent’s On at the right bargain collectively of their in the by preliminary injunction was issued future. While the “back-to-work” move Superior prohibiting Court all strike ac- found ment was not to have been en theory picketing tivity and on the gineered respondent, there was illegal am attempt as an obtain strike support provision. ple notifying finding evidence to that an After arbitration employees they acceptance might return to brought the contract its discrimination, respon- without work respondent’s about its interference with plant July opened its and 249 dent employees refusal to employees returned work. The strike the Union. Under such circumstanc off, however, July and on was not called like contracts have been voided on es large group pick- members ground employer may reap respondent’s eted about feet illegality fruits of his being thus among employ- whom designated were the four plant, to eliminate allowed the union Many persons, here involved. bargaining agency employees. includ- ees employees, yelled ing four “scab” and Relations Board these National Labor Brad Ass’n, supra; employees plant, Dyeing ford National Lic- “rat” at shortly police after noon some officers ar- special tious under doctrines of local law. rested employees charged four over, When the strike was and all the em them with a peace. breach of ployees The four were taken except four, back these Roy Stevens, Clifford Gal- the refusal to let them jobs resume their lant, Michael Mary Sullivan and Sullivan. was in substance a discharge at that time. The first three were officers of the Union. The Board was warranted in finding that Stevens was also member of the bar- in thus discharging these gaining committee which had met with the was not purpose motivated respondent. Mary Sullivan was a sister of vindicating public justice on account of of Michael Sullivan. trivial peace breaches of the of which these four many well as —as Later in the afternoon the strike may guilty, have been and in find others — called off and the members of the Union ing, rather, that peace the breaches of the sought to return to work. All of them only served pretext, as a and that were reinstated exception respondent penalty visited discharge four mentioned above. The evidence upon outstanding part Union leaders as showed that knowledge parcel policy studied breaking that most if all of those reinstated had up the Union. Such action was a violation injunction violated the op- and shouted 8 (3). Section See National Labor Re probrious epithets also. These four em- Mackay lations Board v. Radio & Tele ployees were informed Co., graph supra, 346, 304 pages U.S. at they that would not they be reinstated until 347, 58 911, S.Ct. page at 82 1381. L.Ed. had cleared charges themselves of National Labor Relations Board v. Fan against them. 1939, Corp., 240, steel 306 U.S. 59 S.Ct. At their trial for peace, breach 490, 627, 599, 83 L.Ed. 123 A.L.R. Clark, respondent’s attorney, pros applicable to bar Board reinstating order ecuted them. At the close of the evidence employees guilty minor breaches of judge placed file, their cases on which peace picket Republic on the line. Steel according stipulation to the between the Corp. National Labor v. Relations parties hearing at the before the trial ex Cir., 479, 472, 3 F.2d page 107 certiorari aminer “means that there was no record point, 1940, 684, denied on this 309 60 U.S. impeach the case which could be used 1027; 806, 84 S.Ct. L.Ed. National Labor witness that at time com Stackpole Co., Relations v. Board Carbon plaint could be taken out of the file and the 167, Cir., 1939, 3 105 F.2d See Na 176. guilty defendants found guil either or not Colten, tional Labor Relations Board 6 v. ty”. stipulation This was the basis for the Cir., 1939, 179, 105 F.2d 183. finding of the Board that mem four acquitted bers 2 Paragraphs (b) were neither nor convicted.7 (a) 1 respondent, however, (c) refused to rein of the Board’s Order must be enforced ground they them on the state had not with modification. Pursuant to the de one charges. Republic cleared their Supreme names of The cision of the Court reapplied men Corp. three for reinstatement and Steel v. National Labor Relations refused, Sullivan, Mary knowing Board, 1940, 7, 77, 311 61 85 S.Ct. U.S. respondent’s position from her L.Ed.-, por- we will stricken that order brother, Sullivan, reapply. Michael did not reading 2 paragraph (c) “deduct- tion of admitted that had she done however, ing, from the amount otherwise so, she would have been refused. moneys due each of the said during period for insists that him said sole rea- received State, Federal, refusing employ- performed son reinstate these work projects, county, municipal ees was their failure to clear or work-relief themselves charges against pay deducted to the of already them. We have and over the amount so Federal, State, county, agency alluded to the fact re- fiscal govern- spondent purported municipal government or discharge never or other supplied said body engaging the funds for the ments which may projects”. strike —a been tor- strike work-relief finding guilt 7 Strictly placed speaking, on file there has case this been a by judgment sentencing

finding apparent guilt, as is followed is not complaints subsequently offender, it is tak- notations on one of the breach of the for ex- unless purpose. peace included as an for that en off file hibit in the case at bar. But when

889 Gompers means Rights. of communication”. Employees’ Cf. Interferences with 1911, Co., 221 Range v. Buck’s Stove & against campaign respondent’s As for the 492, 797, 418, U.S. S.Ct. “by dis- the Board found L.R.A.,N.S., argument can 874. be seminating propaganda this anti-union against employer comparable turned an with, restrained interfered has propaganda circumstances. Anti-union exercise employees in the coerced its 'and employer addressed to his in Section rights guaranteed them may expression more than mere respondent claims 7 of Act”. The opinion, may significance “lose its as an issue of constitutional finding raises a appeal reason”, violence, ain context of citing Labor speech, National freedom of point intimidation or coercion. At Cir., Motor v. Ford employer’s right constitutional free denied, Feb- 114 F.2d certiorari speech System ends. Federation No. L.Ed.-; ruary Ry., Virginian Va.1935, E.D. 11 F. D.C. Harv.L.Rev. Supp. 621, 624, 633, affirmed, Cir., 1936, may proposition As an abstract affirmed, 1937, 84 F.2d right be conceded that “The constitutional L.Ed. * * * speech regard of free la Labor v. Elkland Relations Board Leather clearly just right bor is a of matters as Co., supra; Virginia Corp. Ferry v. Nation employers employees”. as of Continental Board, Cir., 1939, al Labor Relations 4 101 Box v. Relations Co. National Labor F.2d 103. In Continental Box Co. Na v. Board, Cir., 1940, 93, 5 F.2d 97. This 113 Board, supra, tional Labor Relations 113 especially present is one, true in case like the a 97, page F.2d at court em said: “The a where there has been hitch in col ployer right express has the to have and bargaining negotiations lective and the preference one union over another provoked by Union has called a strike not long expression so as that mere ex is the practice. employer an labor unfair pression opinion in of of free exercise privileged publish in such a case must be speech pow and is the use not of economic employees, public large, to his and to the at coerce, compel buy er to support or of negotia version of the breakdown his of against particular for or points tions and And issue. organization.” difficulty labor But privilege narrowly cannot be confined too application practical of a formula of by objective canons of reasonableness of this sort that “intimations of an em argument temperateness expression. of ployer’s preference, subtle, though may be Connecticut, 1940, Cantwell v. potent outright discharge”. as threats of 296, 310, 900, 1213, 60 S.Ct. 84 L.Ed. 128 National Labor Relations Board Link- v. A.L.R. 1352. Co., supra 366, Belt 85 . L.Ed. [61 hand, Supreme On the other Court Supreme As the said In Court in -]. Wagon said in Milk Drivers Union v. Machinists, etc., ternational Ass’n of v. Dairies, Inc., Meadowmoor 61 S.Ct. Board, 1940, National Labor 311 Relations -, February decided 72, 78, U.S. 85 L.Ed.-: 1941: hostility “Known one union clear however, forgotten, “It must never be against may discrimination indeed make Rights Bill child of of seemingly preference trivial intimations of Enlightenment. guarantee Back of the powerful for another union assistance for speech lay power ap- free in faith of an Slight suggestions employer’s it. as to the peal peaceful to reason all the means may telling choice between unions gaining access to the mind. It was in among effect men who know the conse- explosions order to avert force due quences incurring employer’s strong upon rational to restrictions modes of com- displeasure.” thought The same was ex- guarantee munication that free pressed by Judge Ry. in Virginian Parker speech generous scope. given But Cir., System v. Federation No. utterance in a can lose context violence 641, 643, where he said: “It must F.2d appeal significance as an to reason connection, however, in remembered part become an instrument of force. sort of exerted influence an Such meant to be shel- utterance employer upon employee, dependent up- tered Constitution.” employment livelihood, for means of on his undue, may easily upholding in state become in that very This was said court employee’s in injunction forbidding picketing, including will will favor coerce the desires, against peaceful picketing, working employer his “the man’s bet- what the S90 really bargaining collective aid judgment ter best as to or other mutual what protection, fellow guaranteed his or interest of himself and Section employees.” of the National Labor Relations Act”. provision This general has included been problem striking be- a balance in all Labor Board orders where the em important conflicting interests tween the ployer guilty has been of- found peculiar gravity involved is one of practices the unfair labor described Sec reason, approach delicacy. For this tion 8 of the National Labor Rela Act. a fair and workable courts toward Co.,, Laughlin tions Board v. & Steel Jones cautious, and an solution must needs be opinion supra; Corp. v. Shipbuilding Bethlehem go subject be- should Board, supra; National Labor Relations yond particular exigencies case. High National Labor Relations Board v. land present required case we are not Co., Cir., 1940, Mfg. 110 F.2d Park company’s campaign to decide whether the 632, 639; Republic Corp. v. National Steel publicity propaganda conducted Cir., couple during in 1937 of weeks the strike Relations Board F.2d National Labor separate independent un- constituted a Cir., Bearing National Motor v. practice. intimating fair Without 105 F.2d 661. The Board’s any opinion as to correctness of the justification de general for the cease and decision in National Labor Relations sist order been that the unfair has Co., supra 909], F.2d Ford Motor [114 (2), (3), practices described in subsections Board’s it is to be noted that the order species of (5) 8 are (4) and of Section specifically the com- commanded that case pany with, practice defined in generic unfair labor “interfering and desist from to cease (1). Construction Section Art Metals restraining, coercing Board, 2 Co. v. National Labor rights guaranteed exercise Cir., 110 F.2d circulating, dis- Section 7 of the Act Board But in National Labor Relations disseminating among tributing or otherwise Express Publishing March employees propaganda statements or -, Su- disparages or criticises labor or- which had preme Court the first time occasion ganisations advises its or which breadth a Board order to criticize join organisations”, (Italics not to such employer and desist directing to cease portion order, ours.) This of the Board’s with, any interfering re- “in manner in Ford case declined to en- court employees in the straining, coercing its or force. In case bar the Board did not at rights” guaranteed as in of their exercise respondent to cease specifically order the case 7 Act. That was a Section disseminating among its and desist from employees specific prac- only unfair labor where the disparaging labor or- statements Board a refusal to found was tice ganizations advising its or (5), 8 bargain in violation of Section join organizations. Board in to such which, recognized, also was as court pointed propaganda its decision out that the (1). 8 of Section a technical violation employees “in an effort directed to its was pointed breadth out Stone Justice duly bargaining their des-

to forestall with court, order, injunction of a like the ignated representatives”; propaganda upon circumstances of depend “must bargain. refusal to phase was thus case, being prevent vio- purpose each to ample to sustain the But there evidence n lations, the which in the threat of future finding of a violation of Section Board’s similarity is indicated because their or necessity ruling (5) of our without the relation to those unlawful acts which the propaganda, itself, in and of con- found been has to have committed practice. an unfair labor stituted employer past”. in the rec- cases, ognized arising in several The order under review commands the both terms, employer general paragraph in in National Labor Relations Act under the Railway Act, (d), any “in Labor the Su- to cease desist from and under the with, approved interfering preme cease and de- manner restrain- Court other substantially like coercing in in broad ing or the exer- sist orders terms rights self-organization, paragraph (d) of the order now under to to cise of their them, form, organizations, in court said join assist labor But “the or to review. appear collectively through representa- practices did not bargain unfair labor right in violation of the choosing engage or isolated acts their own tives of self-organization, like the refusal to purpose bar- in concerted activities for interfering per- any with from “in manner here, disclosed gain hut the record Organizing in- efforts of attempts the Steel Workers’ by varying methods sistent collectively with bargain self-organization Committee right of terfere with the Co.”; cease Mfg. and to or Reed & Prince the Board in circumstances from which discourag- any “in manner desist from could have found the the court found or Organ- ing membership in Workers’ varying efforts Steel continuing threat of Asso- izing Amalgamated In future”. Committee attain the end same Company Iron, Tin Express Publishing case ciation of & Workers in Steel America, other to North or think a mere refusal Local court did not (5), In un- organization employees”. labor of its bargain in violation of Section practices, Express Company case aggravated by Publishing other unfair Supreme recognized in the that a subse- an order was sufficient to warrant Court quent “discriminatory discharge of union It therefore modified broader form. general may bargaining make Board so as to members so' affect order employer process should require only as to establish a violation” bar, any manner in- “in order. So in the case cease and desist from modified (2), for ex- terfering efforts of Guild future violation of Section ample, by promoting Express dominating Publish- bargain collectively tendency company both Company”. union would have ing efforts of the Steel to interfere with the was more bar there the case at Organizing Workers’ with the Committee bargain, in viola than a mere refusal discourage and to also, (5). There tion of Section membership Indeed, organization. such labor (3) seen, a violation Section we have ingenuity take much it would not discriminatory discharge of four in the almost kind of unfair labor find that Further, employees. there a violation hostility union, manifesting practice, to one employ signing up (1)8 of Section another, would have the or favoritism to im individual contracts ees under posed encouraging discouraging effect of upon exercise a restraint them the organization, and membership in bargain collectively in the right contempt thus would be a of the decree provisions in the con as a result of future suggested. Hence there would form collective which forestalled future tracts point modifying to be much seem upon are fre bargaining quent matters which order paragraph (d)1 of the Board’s negotiation em subjects of' between now stands. ployers employees. It seem that would think that under the cir- We therefore unfair conjunction of three labor these pro- here cumstances disclosed the broader justify practices would the broader form appears paragraph (d) as hibition order, and desist of cease the consistent the Board’s order is within the discretion Express scope reasoning in the of the Board and should enforced. Company Publishing case. We led to are Na an examination of this conclusion (d) Order re- paragraph Since Mackay Board tional Labor v. Relations quiring the and desist cease Telegraph supra, & where Radio interfering- exercise with the general cease and desist order was held rights under section 7 competence though within grounds, can be enforced on the above specific practice only unfair unnecessary decide whether or not discriminatory was the refusal found justified finding the Board employer certain of the strik to rehire literature, dissemination of anti-union collapse aof strike which had ers after the case, particular circumstances of this prac provoked an unfair labor been a forbidden was in itself form interfer- tice. ence. modify the Board’s undertook If we Paragraph dealing 2 (e), pattern following of the modifica- order notices, posting will be Company modified Express Publishing tion striking “will cease and from it the words effect of the not think case we do substituting for them the words desist” present broader form as would order in its engage in conduct from which After “will be much altered. practical matter cease and desist”. National para- ordered to orders in it-is Labor and desist specific cease the graph Express Relations Board v. Publish (b) (c), we would further (a), Co., supra. ing cease and desist order A enforcing decree will be entered order of the modifications Board with the paragraphs pre- (e) 2 (c), (d) and viously indicated. McLELLAN, Judge (concur- District

ring.) To majority opinion the extent indicates there was sufficient evidence to enough

warrant findings Board’s support order, modified, I concur therein and think the direct- decree there ed should be entered.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FERGUSON et al. Watts, Robert Counsel, B. Gen. No. 9626. Labor Washington, D.C., petitioner. Appeals,

Circuit Court of Ninth Circuit. appearances No other entered. March DENMAN, MATHEWS, Before HEALY, Judges. Circuit DENMAN, Judge. Circuit pe- The National Labor Relations Board titions for our enforcing decree its order against labor, respondents, employers commanding them to cease and desist from practices. unfair various re- These spondents appeared and consented entry of such a decree and we have jurisdiction grant peti- the Board’s tion far so as it concerns them. petition The Board’s also seeks to have organization us determine that a labor respondents’ employees, the Brotherhood Miners, right Alaska has no of collec- bargaining employers tive its and to us enforcement have order that decree the respondents shall not the Brotherhood. The Board seeks with to secure such a decree from us, though party pro- the Brotherhood is not a to the ceeding sought and is here party. be made a Board to hearing, The Board’s record of its petition refers, is filed here. purports' to show the Brotherhood proceed- served the Board in been appeared and ing before it and to have order there and decree to the our consented

Case Details

Case Name: National Labor Relations Board v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Published: Apr 2, 1941

Citation: 118 F.2d 874

Docket Number: 3549

Court Abbreviation: 1st Cir.