*1 SMITH, Before GANEY and Circuit AUGELLI, Judge. Judges, and District Judge. GANEY, Circuit question here involved is free of difficulty. real case is before the National the Court Board, pursuant Sec- *2 way meeting when, on at the last October Rela- 10(e) of the agreed agreement 160(e), both Act, tions 29 U.S.C. § against could not At that time reached. issued order enforcemеnt of its company president, Oliphant, 1, 1961, follow- Edward respondent on December a ten made Union of that last offer to the ing proceedings under the usual a complaint hour and pay cents an base increase Act, on a based of Section interfering profit-sharing plan in incen- lieu respondent was pay. employees tive in- restraining coercing them that the advised and or collectively plan put bargain crease and Monday, in on failing would be effeсt and to though employees, representatives its even meeting ployees rejected off them. At a and violation Act, premises (5). 158(a) (1) on em- and 29 U.S.C. § rejected ployees and offer voted jurisdiction The Court has Monday, forty-eight strike practices proceedings as unfair labor employees being thirty-eight рresent, Pennsylvania, County, in Blair occurred voting “yes” voting and ten All “no." respondent manufactures where fifty-three employees plant copper arе sold which and tubes brass worked until the date of the shipped commerce. in interstate and Pickets, operating October 17. in six each, shifts of four Specificаlly,the Board found that hours were thrown around respondent these and all but Sections three violated withdrawing recognition striking employees among the pickеts. the Act Oliphant it as the On October Mr. from Union1 bargaining representative Union, a of wrote letter to the as well as to reversing employees, advising emplоyees, trial and in withdrawing recognition respondent examiner, found that was did not because he believe “was not represented majority Oc Union of the em- аs to the Union’s status 1960,” employee ployees the re that “no and directed and of this tober spondent, belong affirmatively, needs to * ** requisite no im- post the order return work and to mediately Later, respect and remain thereto. at work.” tices with striking employees returned record discloses that early work but the Dеcember of the Union as the collective had certified employees until rest remained out respond- January 17, 1961, at time which the Un- em- ent’s respondent iоn notified the em- separate on two ployees had voted terminate the work once in and stoppage “unconditionally and two successive аgreements once.” at work covering employees alleged respondent upon into between the and information Union, respondent largely the sеcond which relied for with- During recognition the time was to the drawal effect, workers, number, contract reason four in was effect that some foreign competition, to return to work without they twenty-one, proposed to fore- and some fifteen to returned, pay, plan altogether, incentive have certаin but rejected cross a vote afraid line. The agreement supplemental hearsay 21. A ex- 28 to information must be mitigated second contract to no littlе since it was tended the obtained sug- persuasive been under- Automobile, and its Local 1. International Workers Implement Agricultural AFL-CIO. Aircraft gestions Board itself supervisors in the workers’ said on a number of position practice”' could occasions that it is inevitably their the “better homes negotiate for the with reluctance. stated well been time,, then, Oliphant he Union first later at a Mr. also testified *3 telephone calls, appropriate proceeding start an to deter- received four the mine anonymous, advising him Union lacked a ma- whether jority favoring company employees back it. individuals were bargaining agent. work, аs their not cross but that Further, for of violence. line fear say, Sufficeit to on a careful review respondent complained that out finding whole, the recоrd as a election in the 1958 who voted Board that the did not have a resulting the Union in the certification good by supported faith doubt is substan- twenty- only agent, as tial еvidence. See Universal Camera eight presently with the were connected Corp. Board, v. National Labor Relations company. However, there the fact that 474, 456, 340 U.S. S.Ct. 71 L.Ed. 95 personnel of been a turnover An enforcement order issue. will deter company election since last the mining representative, employees’ is Rehearing. On Petition for ground sanctioning conduct for no respondent points The peti- out refusing company union here rehearing that the Uniоn was nothing to recognition, since there only. the Board in 1958 Our joined persons who had show statement it was certified also employees. anti-union On were However, 1960 was in error. it is obvi- contrary, points to the evidence predicated ous that our decision is not that all of them adhered were fact subject any reliance that the Union was certified bringing them to the Union in 1960. requirements. Union within the selves 25, 1958, On June v. was certified as Cir., Corp., Mills 1 Woolens Worcester agent negotiat and twо F.2d 170 Company, September ed with the one on However, side, positive the evi- 15, 1958, 2, and one on nearly showed that all dence through to run strike; picketing during and was еxtended 1960. There can be no doubt within Union two weeks Supreme since Court’s decision in strike; that there had been check-off B., Brooks v. N. L. 348 U.S. 75 ending dues for the week of Union Octo- 99 L.Ed. S.Ct. that when the together 16; this, ber and all of majority rep Board certifies a resentative, as background previous of two Union-com- its status is immune from negоtiations, pany productive challenge year for one pe and after that contracts, instances was a in both employer may riod refuse to strоng nego- foundation continue it the Union if has “fair doubts” as during than rather tiate continuing majority. the Union’s recognition. abruptly refuse Union finding here that Board’s good Indeеd, law not have a faith casts a burden on did doubt of the negoti majority is and, one of parties to strike continue fact ac during cordingly, it and the to do is entitled tо refusal so affirmance ation supported by Court if it is violation this is a substan record, evidence on the Act. National Relations Board tial as adverted Lozenge Co., Cir., Opinion 2 209 of this Court F.2d in v. Pecheur 403; National Labor Relations We there reviewed the facts Remington Rand, Inc., Cir., record Respondent Additionally, broke off F.2d the which relations respondent and the refusing into between recognition. Union, the second of which it withdrawal are suffi- recited facts there While the deci- Bоard’s
cient to substantiate rehearing is denied. unnecessary recite all sion, is since it showing facts, not it was Union’s as to the doubt faith might add, con- status, we decision, Board’s firmance fifty-three men who *4 16th, of October Company’s payroll as taken, not a vote when the strike 17th, nor McVey, single work on the H. Trustees one went Fred D. PITT and E. Pitt, any of the Estate of William P. to work did Appellants, 28th, including up days to and Oliphant, Pres- by Edward as testified to Treasurer ident UNITED STATES Appellee. 28th further testified Company re- of October—the No. 17256. had Union—he fused to United States Court per- daily saw gone into the Eighth Circuit. Company on employees of the haps 20-25 June picket line. Aug. Denied finding of Accordingly, we confirm Respondent did not Board that in accordance February Opinion of with our Opinion of this is Ordered It amend- filed Court 562, paragraph delеting page ed following: 3, the discloses
“The record as the certified representative bargaining
collective respondent’s sepa- employees on two in 1958 once rate two successive agreemеnts covering the re- into between entered spondent and substituting following: therefor discloses that
“The record Union as the production respondent's maintenance following two successive col- cov-
lective ering were