National Labor Relations Board v. Fant Milling Company
258 F.2d 851
5th Cir.
1958
Check Treatment

*1 appears prevent application however rior Court appreciated this, not to ground ordinary trust was an took rules. This but trust rea- years no or not termi- and there is that whether trust had for a term to nated were of whether son to that the trustees decisive assume legislature legal trust had intended trustee to title to be divested property property actual avoid taxation on held in effected its opinion As Scott trust. seen the itself leaves 88 of distribution. Section something speaking authority ex- Trusts, p. to be for desired as prop- though case, point. in real our estate decision is tent of the trustee’s imposi- erty, points express that the raising Some cases the same or similar convey duty tion on trustee questions to the one involv- before us but legal grant in fee implies of a estate subject Pennsyl- trusts to other than simple than one trustee rather vania law and accord with the which equitable term as the same limited to Bowers, sult we reach are Russell D.C. v. measuring estate the duration 13; F.Supp. Neave v. Commis- nothing to would have Else he trust. convey. sioner, 1952, 1237; 17 T.C. Coachman duty convey continues Such Commissioner, 1951, v. 16 T.C. 1432. pre- the active trust is sufficient Bingham’s Commissioner, Cf. Trust v. venting operation Uses Statute 325 U.S. 65 S.Ct. legal property in vest title the trust 1670; Davis, L.Ed. Commissioner v. If true as this is the remainderman. Cir., 1943, 132 F.2d 644. property which trusts of real ap- otherwise be would Statute of Uses judgment The is affirmed. surely imposition plicable, then convey impressed duty as is will3 fourth of the testator’s trustees were doubt removes given legal property title to trust they conveyed it. until such time Pennsylvania opin- no found We have change ions would this result. Pennsyl- taxpayers’

all one of the held vania involved citations trusts NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS subject property and were thus real BOARD, Petitioner, exception is In the Statute of Uses. Estate, 1948, Pa.Super. re Thaw’s COMPANY, FANT MILLING taxpayers which A.2d Respondent. distinguish. attempt case held That No. 16953. personal property who trustee Appeals United States Court of day process of wind- on tax Fifth Circuit. ing up of the trust after the the affairs Aug. 1, 1958. was liable for date termination for its personal property imposed tax property. personal The deci- owner of lower sion court which reversed trust ended on the date held that the died; beneficiary court had lower life involving on a number cases

relied property real Stat-

trusts of applicable. Supe- ute of Uses was principal corpus my estate, expiration years ten At the 5. “Fourth: my absolutely simple.” my death, fee I direct from the date * * * pay one third over trustees *2 AFL, Millers, certified tion of Grain bargain- 26, June 1953 as exclusive ing agent employees. for its August 13,1953 From November Respondent on and the Union met nineteen dis different occasions which cussions were held directed towards working part out a between the contract meetings parties ies.2 The between the by and were conducted the local officers attorneys Company, on the one side, representatives and two national the Union from local Oklahoma employees, committee of six three to having the other. No contract agreed upon, having Respondent, con longer repre cluded that the no Union Counsel, Fenton, General Jerome D. majority sented a employees, of its Stephen McDermott, and Thomas J. granted October Counsel, Leonard, Associate General increase to its after discussion Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Marcel representatives with Reel, and Counsel, Frederick U. specific them; and, on No notice B., Attys. Alexander, R.L.N. Maurice posted vember a notice that Washington, C., petitioner. D. longer it was informed that Union no McLaughlin, represented majority Fisher, Gil- D. O. B. J. Fisher, Sherman, Tex., Gillespie, lespie that it would & not do business further Tex., McLaughlin Paris, Harrison, directly for with the & but would deal employees. with its respondent. Judge, HUTCHESON, many had, Chief The Union Before CAMERON, thereto, Circuit of unfair filed a and RIVES against Respondent Judges. later, which, fifteen months hearing issued; was held be- Judge. and a CAMERON, Circuit Examiner, his who entered a Trial fore by presented Petitioner’s question report intermediate order of its prayer for enforcement good faith, guilty of failure to Respondent, 19,1957 whether the April recommending and de- cease imposed duty Na- pursuant to Board, one entered. The sist order bargained Act,1 Relations Labor tional dissenting,3 adopted the Trial member respect matters faith with report and entered order Examiner’s charge filed in the contained seeking have us enforce. it is Respondent, Fant Union. certified during period was, Milling Company, question us will be re- engaged largely upon mill- involved, business of in the a determination solved Sherman, Texas, and em- to what tran- flour the effect evidence as people. long Pur- spired ployed hundred after the about two negotiations election, American Federa- and actions to an suant Sep- seq. 30, August 27, 11, July et June 16 and § 1. 29 U.S.C.A. 15, and November tember October meetings August 13, 2. These were held September 5 and November 1953; January December 8 and 3. 117 N.L.R.B. 1277. April 2, 22, May 8, 19 and dissenting contemplated suc- in or member set forth parties embraced cinctly charge.4 Examiner of the attitude The Trial his estimate decision, essen- of its predicated their orders basis recog- margin quote and we some ex- tially union withdrawal on the agree cerpts *3 process step the from his nition, was dissent.5 We in which one October, The the wage 1954. and conclusions as estimate the set of increase 4. 229 F.2d cast and not Company’s negotiations. H. is struck with the fact considered nor the Board is traders, tract. Under who made the their life’s pany pitted down the not ment would never 1954, upon that the courts make it clear” that sary ny thing smacking more than Mfg. hold its workers specious doctrine the anything at the outset ment and hoc. But read ing “upon suspicions and to scheming and action resentatives as seems noting evidence. Respondent The final action Both sides negotiations be made the deliberate the oral competitors, Rutter-Rex representatives Company long Company granting suspicion faith.” many 217 ®”. clear that almost inconceivable Regional but neither the improper period begun. matters, long appendices. the Union’s we not based work; See, infra, to have been The the record minor proof urges arguments two “local The year shackled its N.L.R.B. impressions claimed was record as a mere from proved suspicion parties they Mfg. Co., negotiation tend 567, of time against the requiring Trial entice certain post Director challenge able to and adoption wage increase, charges, after derived from evidence be said that until that the more than a hint of matters, against disowning the Union could alone did the start necessarily naturally shrewd rather than to included in At the with the N.L.R.B. v. had settled hoc v. upon themselves reliance Examiner, stimulated us pretense. after October with Union boys,” here and not Trial Examiner areas representatives Denton, Cir., point N.L.R.B. must be based sit would tend to made the statement page bargaining in 5 ergo of this state necessary Board’s and there is two first of a “It overtures that stated: negotiations and sinister outset, Cir., 1956, down over substantial conjecture the Com to arouse contracts fact that unskilled upon included propter experts compa upon turned course 5 agree neces- I.B.S. v. alter hard any- find con rep rely one “It us be J. 5. first Metals Act. increase 2d precludes Cir., 1953, but be no whether about latofully enth wage sight’ consideration negotiations crease lohieh the amended question leagues’ subsequent tain opinion conduct curred practice predicated on acts that occurred October and opinion the in their spectively, Respondent’s and which was not made the employees October, spondent. it;age cause affirm enforcement. [N.L.R.B. “A “The Courts But it “In the instant second, his [*] charges. Respondent’s granting opinion for to issue a reading this charge and more than 6 and almost increase. the into the 5% increase, after evaluation case whatever Products shows that is almost 475] were evaluation charge, even is not decision my opinion, may preceding be contention of other Fifth Circuits have months But Regional to the issued. The October [*] 202 F.2d clearly Newton, made wage with the Union. the Union wage of their * finding cases, conduct similar to those filing given of wage as this case turns on the Respondent’s necessary amended, charge may candidly complaint points fully Indiana And case, the critical Corp. filing appears Appeals entirely that Respondent increase [*] require increase —which oc- * of the crucial element Director’s the October them a of an increase though I, too, agree 613] 1954. the Cir., [the basis filed wage Metals Respondent v. admitted that serving have for Section the Respondent’s Respondent’s course that for the Sev devoted to a violated the therefore to [*] of there would unfair labor N.L.R.B., serving discussed conduct majority’s] the acts in in Thus not. subject us the basis alleged ‘final wage increase, issue is occurred gave held the Re- decision [Indiana we My Newton months to sus- — 214 F. of an of 10(b) wage their [*] find- 1954 deny of a col- the be- re in- its of in quoted portions dis- fusal to issue followed of this forth this action the issuance of a com- sent. plaint August Eight bargain- significant understanding of the An ing sessions had been held between dealing requires arewe with which facts date of the kept mind. dates decisive a few complaint. date of the issuance filed its May naming practices, Novem- signed by Ralph Cox, inter unfair begin- their representative date of national ber recognition 6 months ning (in printed made out on a form we statute). quote At provided margin period the contents *4 bargain- charge charge heading eleven printed the under time the “Basis 6 wage Charge.” and a ing complaint, held of had been the sessions issued given em- certain about had been fifteen increase months thereafter and 13, July the April charge begins, ployees May 19. based effective 20, the of having a com- issue the statement: Regional refused “It Director July charged by charge, upon and of plaint American Federation based ** * request Respond filed a written Millers Grain 31 the Union engaging- engaged refusal, the dissent- in and now is of this ent review * ** appeal ing as an in certain unfair labor member treated ** 20, hereby November Counsel Counsel. General General ’* withdrawing alleges complaint, its Company posted notice as follows.”7 Both the a bargaining hearing recognition of referred and the notice wage charge 20, copy by May 1954, preceded and a of agent, of January charge upon served 7. was therewith of October crease Regional Respondent. re- withdrew his Director April Clyde according April mar- Gordon increase —which April 24, jority case M. Onnie the mob 1954 W. Morris is of Ray April Respondent made the their never because of —-was charge. membership subject or amended of' a and activities behalf of second complaint Millers, Accordingly, here- Federation of Grain even if American AFL, organization, regarded substitute for at all- a a labor be amended since and' or times such dates has refused a second 10(b), by employ and un- is, nam of Section does now refuse the above virtue holdings employees. Indiana Metals ed der pred- cases, para precluded “By set forth and Newton acts from by graphs above, icating Act on violation other acts and- a wage officers, conduct, by agents it, increase. its that October basis of by impelled with, employees, lan- is interfered restrained' This conclusion for, employees 10(b) guage as the Court its the exer of Section coerced case, guaranteed rights ‘Without Newton cise of the in the in Section. said placed limitation, on Section we home 7 of the Act.” provisions Act, would 10(b) its 21, 1953, 7. “8. orOn about November meaningless great ato ex- rendered be thereafter, at all times did' ” [Emphasis added.] tent.’ refuse continues to refuse to bar- it, gain collectively with or about November the Union 6. “On as the agents employees, representative officers, refused exclusive its all the em- in, collectively ployees the author- unit described above agents paragraph of American Federation ized Millers, AFL, chosen or “9. On about October Grain Re- plant represent spondent, its at its without notice purposes put general wage for the collective bar- them into effect increase respect pay, wages, gaining in rates of for all the unit described' employment, and other condi- above hours employment. “By paragraphs in engage described tions acts opposite 9, Respondent about the dates set 8 and did “On in and respective below, it, by thereby engaging in an unfair labor- their names section, officers, agents employees, practice meaning termi- within the employment Tony (5) 8(a), of: Polk subsection Act.” nated is- therefore, determi- discretion time summary, suance an thereon. order based these: nant facts are (cid:127)»* «” prac- [Emphasis charge added.] labor unfair Union filed 160(b). Respondent’s actions U.S.C.A. upon § tices based preceding that during months the six authority Since de- of the Board Regional refused Director date. The solely statute, rives clear upon based file only that effective action can be taken months Fifteen actions. and those machinery up when statute set Regional filed, the had been substantially is further followed. It and served issued Director up clear showing must set facts purporting be based us practice an as de- unfair setting only up, it, factual as the fined U.S.C.A. § facts wage practice, a unfair labor cital of an predicated must on actions which granted after the increase 4% already been taken. When the Board Based satisfied that the facts contained ensu- of October increase substantiated, have been it or recognition the Un- withdrawal of *5 agents power then have to issue and Labor ion, Examiner the Trial the upon charged person serve improper the with the Respondent had concluded Board stating complaint action “a the with in faith the to failed charges language respect.” in that This plain, in perfectly set out is as Union. It meaning except can no com- that the language dissenting quot- member’s the plaint faithfully must facts reflect the happenings that, supra, these ed without constituting the unfair labor as filing of months after the more four than presented charge. in the charge, us would order the before the fact, Assuming charge com- not plaint the have been entered—in another could embracing happenings would been issued. not have the filed have been justified November, 1954, or the order not of October the think We of, disregard charge original them, plain include amended to by, inwas pro- proper Board for the Board vested to alone it statute charge May authority act: on basis of to ceed charged any the order before 1954 and enter here it “Whenever engaged engaged upon or actions taken more person has us bottomed practice, labor months later.8 That this is four such than unfair * * * pow- by exemplified what the shall have did is it Board what up- trying: be issue it was cause to served said was the issue and Board er to staling complaint Re- person us whether the issue before “The on such long dealing charges respect, spondent, con- course in this hearing duty taining ne- before fulfilled its to a notice ** Provided, justify gotiate faith so *: That its as prolong 1954 to issue based in November shall refusal no any occurring bargaining practice issues, of collective discussion unfair on months the other hand evaded six or whether than more filing legal charge duty thus with the Board and was without war- its copy up- of a thereof in November thereafter service rant against refusing person meet with the whom such Union.” on eight Any Substantially charge pages made such the eleven constituting by may amended its decision are devoted to a agency transpired member, agent, Sep- of what or conduct- discussion hearing tember, the Board in October and November.9 If its by timely Respondent, Examiner motions and con- Trial also devoted 9. report objections, part findings tinuing greater of his tried without success company’s period right decisive a discussion of six limit by negotiations off with the union. covered to break rights union, adjudicate November, one in Board could thus May, subsequent parties actions other on and both were reveals, very de- couched broad terms. com- which as far as the record stages plaint by ne- veloped filed aver- from the later General Counsel by using that, gotiations, period red covered at all times since date the first background, charged, merely employ Anchor had refused to persons statutory the named their ac- scheme would be frustrated because of tivity juris- which alone conferred behalf of the union and because trigger engaged only diction, would serve as the strike. leaving motion, the mechanism in set quotation The Board relied our agent carte blanche the Board from a decision Cir- there of the Seventh they might expand .please, in N.L.R.B. Kohler cuit ignore altogether. or to “The six limitation month authority predicated only The Board to acts that refers occur try prohibit issues thus defined the inclu- does by it, happening on our Anchor case N.L.R.B. v. sion similar or related acts Mills, Inc., 1956, charge.”10 Rome and re- The similar agree ap- We do the cases are lated acts referred consisted there posite. repetitions applications Anchor involved refusal of the mere employer keep charges named hire former named in the engaged persons who had strike which had been made the two six- within charges periods Two it. were filed the month covered them.11 *6 concept epitomizes carrying ly This his a out of what had been of what was before him: determined before the last important question merely “An here wheth- was and was culmina- tion, closely point time, not er or the records a reflect refusal related in of of part Respondent bargain closely happenings on the of the series of a related honestly during period by charges. at a time when it was an at covered impasse fully Harris, employ- with the Union and was In union and the rep- longer negotiated years, convinced that the Union no had er 3% majority early January, appeared resented bargaining unit, negotiations or whether Re- were to be Jan- fruitful. spondent’s uary 7, employer refusal the union advised the good motivated faith doubt it desired that utory to discuss the new stat- wage Union’s status. The critical minimum schedule to become question January employer is whether under the circum- effective 25. The con- employer early stances this case the en- sented February, meet with the union recognition to on pressed titled withdraw and the union for a good date, employer finally Union basis of faith doubt definite but majority. postponed [Oiting meeting February as to the Union’s sev- until interim, employer cases.]” eral or 20. wages promptly had raised and the union doing, 10. What the Seventh Circuit said in the advised that in so it had breached case, agreement page 7, Kohler at 220 F.2d at between them and that worthy charges. Upon of note union would here: file re- “ * * * ceiving gets advice, employer Board] if it so [the sponded completely negotiations- outside of situation which that no further may gave would be to the conducted rise be “until the situation- response initiating proceeding clarified.” This be on said to was con- motion, February tained then the a letter dated should Own two- supported by days charge. after the union had fall as filed its last heavily also relies 11. Petitioner on our The basis the Board’s Harris, 1953, employer N.L.R.B. case refused to bar- gain advised, two 658. The cases do bear faith the time it was- facts, February resemblance in their some the union- subsequent charges. threat, taken Harris action file This within would the- charges filing charges, the several was mere- caused the ambit em- any statutory period, outside similar situation the six month We do not have charge grew Mfg. seven N.L.R.B. v. here. This bargaining I.B.S. Novem- F.2d held between 636-637: sessions 1954. Neither ber also Examiner] “He Trial [the found, Examiner nor the Trial general agreed counsel with the reflect, that doesnot evidence antedating the evidence of events during practiced lack of faith was properly period six months’ could period. parties had discussed back- offered and considered length, paragraph by paragraph, a at determining ground evidence in Union; proposed contract respondents had violated whether own had also submitted its the act. question version of contract. The “ * * * thing hold, It is one seniority at six of discussed done, admissi- we have that it is meetings, five, vacations at arbitration at add or names to the ble to two three three, one, of the contract at duration discharges period, list holidays two, four, overtime at at shifts amplify expand or to otherwise grievances wages three, two, at at at charge by the addition details meetings during five of the the month six with its line substance. It period. quite an another to hold that en- tirely wages April new and ac- cause raise in The limited different occurring tion based matters between result of discussions was the more six months before the cut than parties the Un- initiated and was off date for representatives Union ion.12 While the may [Emphasis they be asserted.” add- not think did testified that wage increase, ed.] it is were notified of merely adopted Company clear that Judge Hutcheson Chief These words making proposal in these Union’s in N.L. keeping we held with what are events, adjustments. all minor At Newton, R.B. v. objection protest made no length (at pages quoted 474- we where done, list what was adjustment and did *7 475) case of Circuit Seventh from the practice as an unfair labor Corp. v. N.L. Products Metal Indiana weeks, when, four filed within about it is con 202 F.2d R.B., grievances charge setting its its against forth holding in White with recent our sonant Company. the rehearing 23, 1958, N.L.R.B., Apr. de May 29, nied given a indica- This clear Court surrounding Trial Examiner and the the the tion limitations What the reception case us is the before of evidence of transactions have done negotiations, negotiator, ployer Cox, no- testified: break off but the Union’s to company two take a look at until to tice of its action was deferred “I asked the actually days wage mill, charge feed that it after last was rate in the the many appeared that two- to that there was too filed. The Board held me rate, day delay, circumstances, was $1.36 on it under classifications right to was a need for to the of the Board to me there some fatal seems adjustment pass upon wage on Our those classifications. the action then taken. opinion wage to look at it and further I them consider states asked and work were we could discuss at creases benefits made so next employer subsequent February 16, meeting.” to lapse quoted testimony being indicated. At referred time The break, actually April events, meeting meeting all it was 8. At the next Company complied April 22, the consummated before last was on with days request wage writing filed confirmed two ad- the Union’s justments lay after, advising discussed which base of be then decision, sug- it had considered the Union’s Board’s which we affirmed. The adjustments gestions between and had difference that case this one made the apparent require too elaboration. First, noted in the issue an it is to be order charge against employer rec- Un- based withdrawal of union filed ognition p. 19, ion more four Rec. than 21, only charged. filing charge in the course of two violations were wage One of No- was that on across-the-board these or about granted. 20, 1953, respondent If de- vember increase the Union refused was bargain collectively placed before the sired issue Union. substantially Board, April other April it had ten months was or about 24, 1954, in which issued dates named charge, For to file new or an amended certain discrim- were inatorily discharged. do Union chose not to some reason the this, agencies Board and were Second, that, it will be noted while power the law do it without under paragraph p. complaint, record having them, for consider it as or to 88, alleges, charged as was in violation argument done. No serious made that No. 1 charge, No- that on or about any- is, be, the order or could based 20, 1953, respondent vember refused thing happening May prior bargain, violation 2 of No. time or even discriminatory discharges em- reasons, pe- October 1. For these ployees complained alleged. of, was not order of the Board tition enforce the Third, and this mat- crux of the ter, alleg- complaint, 9 of the Denied. ing: Oct. date [a “On about Judge (concur- HUTCHESON, Chief after the five months ring) charge], respondent, . without notice gen- put Union, into effect only question in Were the this case eral increase all supports whole whether as a record par. described above the unit finding that, charged by Board’s 5.” alleged Par. 8 of the respondent refused to undertakes effect without faith with in violation complain supporting it to of a violation 8(a) (5) (1) Act, Sec. I would having no connection with or relation myself concurring content charged violations oc- the two to have that, majority view the under settled curred before filed. law, N.L.R.B. v. American National In- examiner, result is that surance 343 U.S. 72 S.Ct. *8 dissenting judge in and the the Board 96 L.Ed. it does not. court led to find a viola- have been view, however, charged the issue dis- In in tion of the matter opinion complaint, specious of the in Board and on the 9 claim cussed dissenting alleged member and in supported of its the matter so was that majority opinion that by charge. saying agree this, that the dissent- In and I court, dissenting ing judge whether of this the with the member of the Board charge opinion, allegation, unsupported that was but for Board’s that by any incorrectly proof based on proved, matter and for was that properly was, it, the Board before because it came be, under there not in there could charge, finding and be- not embraced no reasonable basis for the was agree dissenting I with the Board. mem- the source, Without aid from this cause point ber, short, briefly finding, I concludedto in Board’s bargain why respondent good I think the Board not did in dissenting wrong, right. directly faith, member runs counter to the teach- requested ranging mill, same two to feed to be effective five of the per April cents hour to some of the

859 912, 917, ings statute, 353 Nation- U.S. the American 77 S.Ct. of the circumscribing case, supra, By 1 Company L.Ed.2d 972. thus al Insurance authority following train, negotiators, in its its re- all the cases spondent cluding Cir., effectively N.L.R.B., prevented any bona White v. bargaining. short, fide 564, April (B) what In Union re- The peatedly requested happened respondent device has here is that fur- entirely injecting together nish with new a into the case list of completely classifications, wage with rates, unrelated to the em- matter ployment regional charge, director, dates, respondent sup- in violation and the plied partial provisions Act, continually a com- only, that no list plaint except up failed promise supply can filed based one live charge, complaint, other such has filed La- relevant data. National Company, bor has heard and condemned the re- Board Relations Board v. Item’ Cir., 1955, spondent respect which, (C) April of matters 220 F.2d 956. On respondent put because lack were not into effect my opinion, admittedly adjustments it. none of mill feed support consulting cases cited and discussed without there- finding, denying go- clearly merely I Board’s concur showed that was ing through enforcement. the motions of collective bargaining. Armstrong Na- Cork v.Co. Judge RIVES, (dissenting). Circuit Board, Cir., tional Labor Relations According my view, substantial evi- 843, 847; 211 F.2d National Labor amply record dence as a whole Stores, Hill Relations Board v. H. G. finding supports the Board’s re- Cir., 1944, fore- 926. The bargain spondent refused faith along going, a number other in violation of Section Report noted the Examiner’s 8(a)(5) (1) Keeping of the Act. Decision, occurred in the Board’s mind date on which rigid concept of six- within most possible ap- and with the strictest filing period prior month 10(b) limitation, plication of Section reference subse- Without following occurred Novem- between foregoing quent events, I think (A) 1954: Re- ber support furnishes substantial evidence negotiators spondent’s functioned under respondent the Board’s president from its instructions fused to faith. yield respect were not three part pleadings is no (1) Seniority important matters: precedes the case. It governing pro- to be the sole factor purpose complaint, for its (2) motions. must not contract setting preliminary in motion of a inves- provision. (3) contain an arbitration tigation to determine whether The contract must contain a no-strike complaint based should monetary penalty clause with for its National Labor issue. Relations (2) (3 )are Restrictions es- breach. Cir., & Shoe v. Westex Boot important pecially when considered to- *9 not, F.2d 12. need 190 gether. could not majority implies, be to “ac- restricted Union that surrender demand faith already tions which have been taken.” right statutory to strike and at the contrary, required To the agree upon refuse to some time same “* * * 10(b) of the isAct Section securing method of a re- effective other any engaged person has in or en- is that “Plainly agree- grievances. of view gaged any practice, such unfair labor grievance disputes arbitrate to ment (Emphasis supplied.) agreement quo Ac- pro quid for an not 1954, cordingly, on the Union Textile Workers Union of strike.” to charged respondent Alabama, “has Lincoln Mills that en- v. America 7, gaged respondent engaging 1954, On October unfair granted general wage meaning a Section increase to its within the employees majority 8(a), (1) (5) (3) concedes subsections specific Act.” was “without notice” to National Labor Relations Un- (Emphasis engaging representatives, supplied.) ion in” but states it was “Is that up them, “after discussion” and was carried the time element alleged respondent complaint. also after had “concluded longer respondent unlawfully represented that the Union that no refused majority bargain 21, employees.” On or about November both 1953, disagree, those I “and at all times statements and find the thereafter.” entirely (Emphasis accurately supplied.) parts facts stated in the It was proper, think, quoted Board’s I brief mar- for gin.1 occurring conduct clude such Board Labor Relations National right I think that the Board had a 658; 656, 1953, Cir., Harris, v. 7, general 1954, consider the October An- Relations Board wage National Labor increase and the November Inc., Cir., 1956, Mills, chor Rome express recognition withdrawal of 779; Relations National Labor from and refusal to continue to meet 1423, United Brotherhood Local Board v. with the Union. When those acts are etc., Cir., F. Carpenters, considered, not even debatable that deference, con- With 2d respondent Board’s that 10(b) by trary of Section construction fused to faith with the excessively majority seems to me supported by Union evi- substantial restrictive, and, if sus- technical dence record as whole. The seriously tained, indeed, goes that it will proof, I believe beyond any reason- en- cripple effective able respectfully I doubt. therefore dis- Act. forcement sent. part September re respondent

1. “In the latter stated it felt that consulting spondent’s president, without in a interested contract Union grant decided it had received ‘information per of seven hour cents what increase mill considers be ac- supervisors mill of his an informed reliable sources’ that curate Union 73). 119-120; 66-68, (R. longer represented majority B.A. decision no negotiator bargaining 4 or Union On October unit. Re- Martin, respondent’s accordingly spondent stated Wellborn for the first time you just vice-president, simply T hear the Union ‘we advised given recognize cent em a seven raise time do at this the Union this, ployees.’ bargaining agent Martin admitted When the em- asked, you plant’ ployees ‘Aren’t aware at the Wellborn you it was ‘re- fusing bargain any (R. 121, have contacted or told me should further’ giving 162; 286, 289, 292). it with or discussed me about B.A. Prior reply meeting, a raise.’ Martin’s the Union’s hadi eight years earlier, questioned 21). (B.A. when given that seven The Un- employed elsewhere, he had he was wage asked ion the source of the information contacting alleged regarding majority, without increases Well- loss and' objec replied respondent latter had born and the made no ‘Just word of 120; 58-60, 63-64). (R. (B.A. 21, 290). B.A. tion. On mouth’ respondent posted respondent day, publicly October a notice the same “On announcing officially wage increase, recognition announced its withdrawal posted plant made which was retroactive to October 4. in a notice on a bulletin respondent gave Admittedly, (R. 121, 166; 22-23, board B.A. 108- (R. 120, 109). transmitting copy notice this action no In a letter 175; 63-64, 68-73, 292). Union, respondent B.A. notice of this *10 (cid:127) meeting scheduled “The for October stated that ‘the information which the Company had, (R. in fact held on 10 was October 15 with reference to the desire 161-162). represented [not of its to be next, final, meeting Union], through “The came verbal date, employees’ held until November 19. On that statements (ibid.).”