National Labor Relations Board v. Hannaford Bros. Co. (T. R. Savage Division)
261 F.2d 638
1st Cir.
1959
Check Treatment

*1 val- record, have been ent the land should April ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‍ued residential at its v. States rule United

value within the page Miller, 317 U.S. page 281, S.Ct.

that: condemned,

“If a distinct tract is part, lands in other or in whole neighborhood may increase proximity market due to the value improvement public erected the land taken. Should Govern- date, ment, determine ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‍to at a later J., Hartigan, dissented. pay lаnds, these other it must take their market value as enhanced proximity.” this factor of judgment is reversed and a new ordered. LABOR RELATIONS

NATIONAL Petitioner, BOARD, (T. Savage BROS. R. CO.

HANNAFORD Division), Respondent.

No. 5382. Appeals Court of

United States First Circuit.

Dec. 1958. Denied Jan.

propriate bargaining unit for collective ground and also on the that it doubted represented whether the Union a ma- jority Bangor employees, not was written in faith. The Board conse- quently Eugene Atty., Keeney, respondent’s Adams Wash- concluded that re- ington, C., D. fusal Jerome D. with whom to with the Union was Fenton, Counsel, J. Mc- unfair 8(a)(5) Thomas Gen. under §§ Counsel, Dermott, Marcel and Asso. Gen. Act. It was further Counsel, Mallet-Prevost, and found respondent Asst. Gen. Board that Washington, negotiations Reel, Atty., delay Frederick U. utilized the em- to petitioner. campaign bark C., brief, D. were on undermine by interrogating Bennett, Me., Portland, H. Herbert concerning their activities, Mayo Portland, Levenson, with whom S. threatening reprisals they them with if Me., brief, respondent. on supported Union, by promising Judge, MAGRUDER, Chief Before economic benefits repudia- in return for HARTIGAN, Cir- and WOODBURY Union, tion of committing thus addi- Judges. cuit tiоnal unfair labor under 8§ (a)(1) of the Act. Judge. MAGRUDER, Chief respondent frankly Counsel for us a have before We adequately stated that the evidence war pursu- Board, Relations Labor National ranted so much Board’s order as 10(e) Re- National Labor ant to § predicated upon finding of various amended, Stat. lations by respondent’s seeking seq., en- 29 U.S.C.A. et § manager, 8(a)(1). in violation of It of its order of December forcement true these acts of interference against respondent. Hannaford unnecessary respondent’s from respondent, Co., is wholesale point view, illegal. indeed ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‍grocery distributor. Its main office wholly illogical we think it is infеr Portland, Maine, in Octo- located in from these acts of interference alone that through acquired purchase ber, guilty was also of a refusal Savage of T. R. and business assets bargain, violation of § Bangor, Maine, op- and has since Co. of February 20, when it sent the letter of as a business branch or divi- erated that rejecting the Union’s formal de sion. recognized mand to be as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em required re- The Board’s order Bangor ployees plant. in the rejec That bargain collectively spondent with predicated upon grounds: tion was two Union 340 of the International Local seriously Teamsters, Chauffeurs, “First, question we Brotherhood you represent Helpers of do the ma Warehousemen and America Union) Bangor (hereinafter jority referred to as of our representative and, second, dowe not consider exclusive of its em- Ban as the working Bangor gor separate part division, ployеes unit but as threatening certainly we economic know cease you representing employees joined are not those prisals if employees. all our promising if economicbenefits repudiated. circumstances, prefer The Under Company’s letter Feb- wait for the decision Na found rejecting the Union’s tional Labor Relations ruary who recognition problem on the now before demand division was them.” waiting case, July 1-CA-2069-Bangor, No. in this letter reference per Labor for “the decision National entered its mitting withdraw, fact that there Board” Relations Union to pending Board, prejudice, pending un was then before *3 representation decided, representation proceeding proceeding. in a by petition dated stituted of the Union processing complaint, In the instant in January 16, 1956, which Union in the l-CA-2069-Bangor, Case No. the Board majority had claimed of em that a the again employees found that the at the Bangor ployeеs at the Union selected Bangor plant separate constituted a bargaining representative, as and its propriate purposes unit for of collective Bangor a that the Division constituted signed bargaining. On the basis of cards bargaining unit; “appropriate” separate by majority Bangor employeеs a the of the Board to the Union asked wherefore possession and held in the of the Union Bangor among the an election conduct organizer, the Board a fact that found as opposed Company had employees. The bargaining the Union was the chosen upon the the that representative majority em- of a of the group employees, Port both at of whole ployees appropriate in the It also unit. single Bangor, at constituted a and land found as a fact reasons ad- that the two bargaining Just ef unit. b “appropriate” by respondent vanced letter in its of writing of Union letter the the ore jection February 1956, of not were Company had February 20, 1956, the Accordingly made in faith. the days of participation three completed Company’s let- Board concluded that the hearings by Board on that held the February 20, 1956, amounted to a ter of Certainly were rational question. there bargain, of 8§§ contention, grounds until and for this (a)(5) Act. the Board, by of the was resolved decision already the reason- We have indicated justified in its refusal was Company’s position in re- ableness contrary assumption, proceed on the bargain fusing separately with the Bangor plant namely, itself that Bangor representing em- as bargaining appropriatе unit.* an ployees until such as the Board April 12, 1956, handed pending represen- the ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‍Board On should determine the representation its decision proceeding down tation should determine finding warehousemen, Bangor group case, that also em- separate employ appropriate helpers ployees bar- at a drivers truck gaining say Bangor appropri plant a unit unit. We shall now some- er’s thing “good Company’s about the faith” purposes of bar collective ate repre- questioning whether meaning 9(b) gaining, within majority employees sented the of the directing election of the even in alone. unit among employеes in such held be say never that This has We directed election do unit. February never, held, election, Union on absence of a secret original Board its that a filed with the determine of the em- appropriate charges ployees labor have se- unit complaint organization particular filed lected basis of a as became bargaining present representative. General Counsel we necessary * hardly employees to men- of its at Portland. There was think We. inconsistency seems to have found here. The Portland tion bargaining represent- was the claim committee indication some together lumping ative the Portland Bangor plants plant, a result into one as of a consent election “good June, 1955, made was not conducted the Board in unit all-inclusive faith”, participated, continued which the Union in that lost. collectively a committee solely the Com- point vast differ- a do out registered pany guilty had been an unfair between such a choice ence refusing ballot, collec- result a secret tively, in violation introduction of § choice established signed unsupported cards, hold to collected at into organizer. substantial the record as evidence on the behest of whole. Cf. N. L. R. v. Fansteel Metal- B. presеnt In no evidence case there lurgical Corp., 1939, 306 U.S. representatives Company ever 627; S.Ct. Franks signed cards, saw any these that there Co. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. answer to letter of 64 S.Ct. 88 L.Ed. 1020. *4 the 1956. There is no to doubt reason examiner, finding by the Accordingly majority the which a of the that, prior accepted, opinion to the effect of that wе should not enforce writing February to the of the letter of so much of predi- order the Board’s as reported Company upon finding it had been to the cated respondent a that management employees guilty that a number of of unfair under Bangor plant at the 8(a)(5) dissatisfied 8(a)(1) in §§ of the and Union, the with from desired to defect refused, that it had after Feb- and it, against bargain intended it the recognize to vote at ruary 20, 1956, to forthcoming find- repre- election. There is no with the as Union the exclusive ing working that dissatisfaction was caused employees this sentative of Bangor at its its by indeed, interference, the acts of warehouse. timing apрears in so far as the from enforcing A decree will be entered us, the record it to have before seems paragraphs 1(b) 1(c) of the Board’s arisen before the interference. respect 2(b) With order. to subsection that, undisputed It is also three order, requiring posting of the of the Board-conducted eleсtions which had notices, we shall so much enforce of plant, been held at the in 1948 only as relates to the § again in this same Union had violation acts of interference. We rejected by majority been a of the voters. notify Company shall also direct the to On the in basis evidence rec- Regional Director for Re- the First ord whole, think it that obvious gion, writing, (15) days within fifteen Company every reason to doubt decree, steps from the date of what that the was the uncoerced choice comply it has taken The to therewith. majority of a employees remainder of order will set aside. be Bangor plant. argued trial examinеr The that HARTIGAN, Judge (dissent- Circuit Company, by its unlawful acts of inter- ing). ference, prevented “had ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‍the election my opinion there In is substantial resolving very from issue on which support the to Board’s Respondent purported entertain to 8(a) a of there had been violation that § Respondent’s differently, doubts. Stated Company. (5) by the illegal destroyed efficacy conduct of were advanced Two reasons method whose outcome it in- awaiting.” sug- letter sisted on itBut is not grounds gested its for refusal as the Board has made an order recognition One is that the Union. interim with doubted of the Union represented appropriate remedy majority dissipating аs a Bangor employees. majority the adverse effects acts of inter- ference, good court indicates that the until faith ground supported by prop- as free election can this erly predicated reported held. The Board has it had been management collectively Company its order to tо the a num- Bangor. gaining Bangor plant units Portland and employees at the ber of arguments Union, The Board’s this de desired were dissatisfied with per fense it, vote se was unreasonable intended from and defect unconvincing.1 entirely forthcoming against bad faith election. are it at the Company But on the other defense hand employees how it is difficult to see any its standing em coercion of its vitiated faith can be asserted prac ployer it had to assert its support of its to bar a substantial well tices have caused gain. rely If the employees become intended number of these thus faith the existence dissatisfied with the company-wide bargaining rather majority unit cause status lose plant units, than individual February 20, established It is well pos necessity employer thwarts that where the indulged to have election, has co sibility in the commission of fair dissuading employer ercive authority tactics aimed require clearly recognize repre support aof frоm a Union which claiming pri majority sented the of its *5 Bangor plant employees.2 prac viewed Thus labor or to initiation of unfair coercion, Company the context of employer. Labor this National tices appear, Company, my opinion, there would sub Relations Board v. Warren Company stantial 185, 100 had 1955, 107, that the 350 76 S.Ct. U.S. 8(a)(5). committed 96; National a violation v. of § L.Ed. Franks Co. Board, 1944, U.S. 321 Labor Relations I Board’s enforce the order 1020; Na 817, L.Ed. 702, 88 64 S.Ct. entirety. Idaho v. Board Relations Labor tional 1956, F.2d Cir., 229 Egg Producers, 9 for On Petition v. Board 821; Relations Labor National 1956, Cir., 229 Wheeling Pipe Line, 8 PER CURIAM. Relations 391; Labor National F.2d opinion majority of is of A Cir., Molding Corp., 2 Pyne rehearing Board v. petition for the Board’s Re 818; Labor National F.2d merit, 226 is case without in this Drainage & Armco v. Board lations be denied. 1955, 220 Cir., Inc., 6 Products, Metal Board examiner trial Both the U.S. 350 denied certiorari F.2d appears to have applied in what this case 748; La National L.Ed. 76 S.Ct. that, time of law because the rule been a Cir., Hamilton, 10 Board v. Relations bor elapsing after 492; Re Labor National F.2d Company acts of inter- for used Cir., Geigy Co., 9 v. lations ference, automat- refusal to 348 U.S. denied certiorari 211 F.2d retroactively an ically became un- 647; National 33, 99 75 S.Ct. example practice. For labor fair Cir., Kobritz, 1 Relations Labor opinion еxaminer, whose F.2d 8. adopted, that the facts which we stated rec for bona doubt for refusal to be a basis fide held The second here, Febru no where “constituted ognize set forth defense upon the actual established the based the evidence ary letter is 20, 1956 majority at the operations of the Union’s were fаct Company’sbelief that request company-wide and established bar require a toas * * * Respondent separate bar further than gaining unit rather thirty-seven employees 2. la There no other been If there compared Bangor plant as would have practices, is clear bor proximately (5) by hundred 8(a) two §of no plant. recognize refusing Union. engaged contemporaneously m week 16 to * * 22, or on the limits of unfair in course the Board’s powers. obviously medial Board, de- Rather for which was is signed court, renuncia- procure to decide what or- bargaining, der any, for upon appropriate if tions and disavowals light in sisting purported predicate his an unfair con- Levenson ** * having em- of acts of To doubts. interference alone. destroy position make our campaign upon clear barked in our main opinion, employee support noted for bar- gaining might through proscribed appropriate well be means case; longer such a hand, Act, Respondent en- on the other two years elapsed one-half titled outcome to await the * * sup- since the (Emphasis election well have effaced plied.) all their effects. For this impose court to on the what rehearing frankly And the might now representa- be an unwanted ground: relies tive absence aof free or election a de- might “The first and items third termination remedy the Board that such a germane to the necessary appropriate *** faith, position our these usurpa- circumstances would be a standing that the has no tion of function. major- assert faith doubt An denying order will be entered ity undеr these circumstances.” rehearing. unsupported We found such rule of law *6 by logic authority. HARTIGAN, Judge, Circuit acts of interference grant No doubt the rehearing. bearing weighed on as evidence faith refusal was weighing no such But here when made. nor, whole, made, on the record enough to substantial finding support of bad faith. contends, in now The Board rehearing, reports COMMISSIONEROF INTERNAL employee REV were the re dissatisfaction ENUE, Petitioner, only Not interference. sult of the acts court, inappropriate that this exer is it cising reviewing function, sup al., Respondents. Constantine et THOMAS fact; missing also ply No. 5384. the bulk of least record shows United States Appeals Court of occurred on or the acts of First Circuit. reports 10, whereas the after 7,1958. Heard Oct. been made seem to have of dissatisfaction state of Decided date. On this Nov. before that supply clearly in cannot record 18,1958. Denied Dec. causal relation. actual of an ference Moreover, reliance to the Board’s due law, causal rule asserted affecting ques relation — factual espe not be faith —would tion significant. cially pass on the did Union had a