Tennessee Products & Chemical Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Basham Coal Company

& CHEMICAL PRODUCTS TENNESSEE Petitioner, CORPORATION,

v. RELATIONS LABOR

NATIONAL Respondent. BOARD, RELATIONS LABOR

NATIONAL Petitioner, BOARD, al., et COMPANY COAL

BASHAM Respondents. 18357, 18463.

Nos. Appeals,

United States Court

Sixth Circuit.

March Burnstein, agent George Philadelphia, bargaining fied as the of A. their em- Halberstein, Ohio, Marion, ployees. opinion Joseph and Pa., L. order Kleinard, Brecker, brief; Phil- Board is No. in on Bell Volume 167 NLRB. & Mitchell, Pa., adelphia, & Halberstein deny We enforcement the Board’s Marion, counsel, Ohio, petitioner for order. Corpo- Tennessee Products & Chemical Alleged ration. violations Sections (1) 8(a) and Jr., Abies, Pitts- South William M. Spears, burg, Tenn., Spears, W. D. I. Williams, Moore, & Chatta- Rebman prior pro- Recital of the facts and the nooga, brief, respondents, Tenn., for on ceedings necessary because of the un- except Tennessee Coal and Cardell Co. grows usual nature this case. It out Products Co. long of the labor strife that has so beset B., Washing- Asplund, N. Vivian L. R. southeastern coal Tennessee Pri- lands. ton, C., Ordman, D. Arnold General Tennessee Products and Counsel, Manoli, Dominick L. Associate Corporation (Tennessee Chemical Prod- Counsel, Mallet-Prevost, General Marcel ucts) and Tennessee Consolidated Coal Counsel, Brown, Asst. General Allison W. Company (Tennessee Consolidated) were Jr., Attys., B., Washington, R. N. L. D. the dominant in interests the area here C., brief, for National Labor Rela- involved; actively operated both had tions Board. portions coal mines and leased of coal Knoxville, Rayson, Tenn., B. John Ed- lands independent controlled them to Carey, Owens, ward L. Willard P. Wash- operators. C., Knoxville, ington, Rayson, D. E. H. Tennessee and Products Tennessee Tenn., brief, for Intervenor United Consolidated, with other mine of America. Workers had, bargained area, prior O’SULLIVAN, Before EDWARDS through with the United Mine Workers PECK, Judges. Circuit organization as known the Southern

Tennessee Coal Producers Association. O’SULLIVAN, negotiated by Judge. The contract associa- Circuit expired October, tion In 1962. 18,357, In No. Tennessee Products & September various Corporation review, Chemical seeks Op- the area formed the Sewanee Coal 18,463 in No. the National Labor Rela- (Sewanee). Association, erators Inc. of, tions Board seeks enforcement de- Sewanee’s charter stated that in- cision the National Labor Relations others, corporated among purpose, for a whereby petitioner, Tennessee acting as the exclusive respondents Products and Basham Coal agent for members. Ten- its Neither Company, al., guilty et were found of vi- Products, Grundy Mining nessee Com- olating 8(a) (5) (1) 8(a) Sections pany, nor Tennessee Consolidated be- Act, of the National Labor Relations In- came formal members Sewanee. (1) 158(a) (5), by § U.S..C. refus- they application stead made for member- with the United Mine subject ship to the condition Se- through agency Workers of America negotiate wanee not for them unless multi-employer unit constructed duly until UMW had certified been addition, of order NLRB. re- bargaining agent employees. their spondents Poplar Flynn, H. Willis d/b/a Company Negotiations (Poplar), Sycamore Coal between Sewanee Company (Sycamore), September, Coal 1962. commenced guilty violating 8(a) (2) September December, Section Between Act, 158(a) en- U.S.C. were four sessions be- § there tering group. into contracts Southern tween UMW the Sewanee justified Labor Union been had certi- We draw inference that largest single employer involved. Work was the the United Mine contract requested that Bitu Association the National could consider ers bargaining agents employees of each Wage Agreement minous Wage election be determined Price Clause amended units. individual contract This was the .that Mining Company requested Bituminous made between any separate Association, cer- considered for of a Operators an association therefore, clear, big tification It is operators election. the of mechanized the first consid- Tennessee, at time the Board Mine that the the United in mines constructing subject propriety mul- a ered the of contract was the This Workers. ti-employer fully that aware against Mine Work of several suits .the opposed every employer involved was charging of the Sherman violation ers competing it. a union It knew also that Ramsey United Mine Work See Act. rep- asserting (D.C.E.D.Tenn. with the ers, UMW was F.Supp. 388 majority a (6th resented the 1967) Cir. F.2d 655 affirmed 416 separate employers. The three Board’s 1969); Coal Co. Consolidated Tenn. its own decision asserts awareness Workers, 416 F.2d et al. v. United these facts. The decision also discloses its negotiations Board’s the The between Sewanee recognition policy fruitless; law own group were the UMW required intent em- the involved the Mine Workers on December ployers throughout multi-employer to form a such involved a the called unit was to its essential creation. the re- mines all coal fields. The Board said: spondents, Tennessee as well as those Products, Most of were down. shut employer par- “The the test whether gone enterprises out of mine have ties have manifested an intent to be business. by group bound rather than individual (Emphasis supplied.) action.” II. September 30, or- following February, 1963, the start among the dered an election be held strike, Mine Workers filed the employees of all of the mine Regional petition Director a single involved, together here tied into a bargain- that union certified as the multi-employer Board’s as- unit. ing representative employees of of the justification for serted resides Opera- of Sewanee Coal all years the fact earlier there well Association as tors multi-employer been some Grundy Min- Tennessee Products and opera- and the shortlived effort mine employers to Company, of which all through tors deal with the UMW required UMW as Sewanee Association. single multi-employer unit. Success position It is new the Board’s that no give ex- this endeavor would intent could be arrived after rights em- clusive Thus, strike had Board commenced. ployees forty-three different of some reasoned: operators, regardless of wishes mine bargaining history “The also reflects majority employees of part of the intent the com- single enterprise. May June 23 and ,to bargain multi-employer panies on a Union Labor Southern continuing (emphasis basis one.” (SLU) petitions filed with the added) single- seeking separate elections expressed consisting em- conclusion was notwith- units This that, Mining standing knowledge Company, ployees Grundy fol- the Board’s lowing Company, Stephenson strike and Brothers Coal start Mining only intransigent Payne, M. UMW’s insistence that A. Inc. ac- violence of and the contract would be the UMW conditions its .then standard voting cepted, re- that surrounded the area on the involved all bargain- day prevented free pudiated multi-employer the election ing. He choice said: voters. Sep- Pursuant to the Board’s order “However, opinion in the of the under- 30, an held on Octo- tember election was signed, pictorial evidence submit- voting dis- ber 1963. Canvass during investigation depicting ted cast, closed ballots that 579 were the crowd massed at the entrance UMW, 50 for the were polling place placard elec- Union, 421 ballots Southern Labor tioneering persons in unidentified challenged. were Prior the election behalf UMW the area im- employees of em- there mediately polls outside the and in close ployers listed Association proximity waiting to the voters in line eligible Grundy listed to and had as vote background coupled with the of vio- eligible employees vote. its to lence hereinbefore described was suffi- It is clear that the number votes cast atmosphere cient to create an of fear substantially exceeded the total listed as polls and confusion at .the which raises eligible to do While the record is so. and substantial material re- issues some, may on matter silent the garding the results of the election.” all, who had or mine foregoing, recitals, After the and other gone out December of business after the Regional the Director recommended 1962, eligibility strike did not send that : lists, employees their former voted but reason, “For the election should nevertheless. be set and a aside new election direct- Sep- Prior to the Board’s decision ed, subsequent hearing to the herein- tember and the election of October after recommended.” Mining Grundy Company which the biggest operator prior had been the to hearing thereafter recommended strike, opera- attempted the to resume by Regional the “to Director was resolve employing tions members the South- challenged the issue raised the 421 ern Labor Union. These at- ballots.” His recommendations also con- organize tempted to a local union made agent tain the recital the “Board up of members of Labor the Southern challenged persons whose names working Grundy. Union activi- Such eligibility were not on the list furnished brought spectacular violence and ties employer” the and further set out terrorism UMW. members .the that, in, This violence described strike, “As a result of the certain mem- subject of, the two decisions Board operations bers Sewanee ceased ei- finding guilty of such conduct. the temporarily permanently, ther or See United Mine Local No. 7083 Workers operations. whereas others continued (Grundy Mining Company) and South- persons As a result the who voted Union, ern Labor 146 NLRB 176 working the election consisted of em- America, Mine Workers of ployees, strikers, replacements laid Compa- (Grundy Mining Local No. employees.” off ny) Union, 146 and Southern Labor NLRB 244 reported His recommendations election, report After Sewanee Association had contended that timely objections 11 of SLU filed its former “intend to Regional charging with Director remain business” and that some 21 the conduct of the Mine had Workers involved former mine “permanently impossible. prior operations made a fair election ceased Regional Director, sustaining objections the elections” but that their former em- ployees regard, previous found nevertheless voted at the election. investiga- during then, led, evidence submitted his re- considerations These However, point he that, tion. does commendation specific incidents of disorderliness hearing Trial Examiner “a merely couples the coercive conduct but directed resolve Board be electioneering crowd- evidence of challenged bal- issues raised ing immediately polling outside the lots herein.” place the much incidents earlier foregoing Report Recom- we strike violence which Regional Director mendations too to have an to be remote effect There- filed on December were election.” Sewanee, after, on December Disposing employer objec- of all assuming apparently that a new election election, report tions held, recommended Re- would be concluded, Board gional Director, requested hereby foregoing, companies “In “spell view of the we out names of the coal objections in entire- overrule their entitled business whose ty.” as members of Sewanee.” vote Thereafter, 11, 1964, Grundy May issued April Mining petition for filed reconsidera- Order, report- supplemental Decision reopen record. tion motion Operators Associa- ed as Sewanee again requested Once the Board to (1964) in tion, bargaining agent of determine the Regional to follow the it refused which employees independently of other em- all elec- that the recommendation Director’s ployers and further miscon- to consider thought Board set aside. tion be occurring the duct UMW after May, 1963, mob April and the that 15,1963. election of This motion October it convict- of which threats violence was denied the Board’s order June no substantial “could have ed the UMW 11, 1964, however, order, expanded which elec- the choice in impact free on voter the matters to be considered at the hear- report Regional Director’s tion.” initially up set had been con- election, during the that stated challenged sider the 421 ballots: including persons, large number “a that, “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED replacements nonstrikers, strikers, alleged may the extent that the facts congregated the sidewalk others disposition challenges, affect the polling immediately the outside stood alleged or to the extent events during polling place occurring after the election relate to period.” changes composition, in the or the con- that, of, ap- tinued existence the unit found to number crowd was estimated “the propriate, hearing scope set times, with at various from 200 to 2000 16, 1964, per- for June is broadened deep to six feet a line of four voters mit the introduction such evidence.” extending polling place down from the (Emphasis supplied.) or more. for a block the sidewalk Thus, putting propriety into one opened, polls several While multi-employer unit all the involved persons about circulated unidentified reopened operators mine June place voting polling outside line light for reconsideration reading placards wearing ‘VOTE FOR occurring after the This events election. AND BE MINE UNITED WORKERS hearing commenced on June be- ” ABLE GET A PENSION.’ TO Boyls. fore Trial Examiner Fannie M. Director, Regional Disagreeing Oper- Prior to date the Board said: posi- its ators Association had formalized Regional Director his tion that it was not existence as a “The based find- crowding ing concerning multi-employer surrendering upon pictorial group its heavy because financial charter to the of Tennessee losses suf- State during terminating corporate fered the strike or existence.1 because the they operating mines which had been again 1964, hearing June, At the longer operative, expressed are no o,f mine all clear that made they financially view that will not be by being included affected who would be opera- able resume their business as opposed multi-employer unit were in a settled, tors if and when the had Products Tennessee it. Petitioner not, view, my finding does warrant a min- all early had ceased advised multi-employer longer unit no ing operations not reenter would inappropriate.” exists or is Mining Company Grundy ex- business. Further, carry opera- she said: on its pressed its desire La- members of the Southern tions with “Accordingly, despite testimony vio- knew The Board bor Union. they some of the wrought o,f lence present no hesuming intention attempt operate Grundy’s so present resuming no intention of properly deci- denounced it in earlier had operating mines, business coal I when sions. Such was situation am convinced that some of those so hearing before Trial Examin- commenced testfying again will find the means of Boyls er testi- June opening their old mines or other mines mony taken confirmed and corroborated area, they and that will con- employers’ multi-employer opposition to a tinue to feel the need of collective by every employer concerned. While strength repre- there is some confusion to whether the they sentative their respondents stipulated, so they joined did when Sewanee.” majority that a the votes cast Boyls specific Trial Examiner made find- election were the October ings that some nine former members of way telling the UMW. There Sewanee went out of business because single how the their cancelled, leases had been and set voted. We need not further consider the out that some thirteen others were clear- challenged matter of the ballots. ly out of prospects business without of re- entering. obviously But the Union, examiner Southern Labor concluded by stating: the matter speaking employees Grundy, oppos- for of being unit. The ed included such a multiemployer bargaining “The unit testimony majority of showed that the heretofore the Board to be the went onetime members of appropriate was described in the Deci- following completely the out o.f business sion and Direction Election of as com- of strike December at the and prising production the and mainten- hearing prospects time of re- o,f employees ance of all Sew- members turning. most, only companies, At anee, but in view of the fact Sew- originally the considered as members corporate anee in its form has dissolv- appropriate unit evidenced election, ed since UMW won the any continue, resume, intent or min- multi-employer is unit now more ac- ing operations. That trial examiner curately comprising described as knew all of this is exhibited various production and maintenance observations, such as: mining operators of those coal who many [formerly formerly fact were of them “The members Sewanee. accordingly members It is then defunct recommended that Sewanee] Co., Easy Co., 1. The Resolution to dissolve contained Marshall Meeks Coal paragraph Co., reading: having all can- Coal others only “WHEREAS, ; appearing there remains four celled and it further (4) companies purpose of said Association who the entire of said Association * * being cancellation, have not received had been voided Co., Nunley Coal Leon Coal Thomas corpo- eluding entity as an defunct certify the collec- as the UMW Board representative of all rate association Sewanee. tive em- production maintenance following “Take the affirmative action mining ployees operators who of coal which it found will effectuate Sewanee, formerly policies the Act: oper- including are not now who those Upon bargain “(a) request, collec- ating business resume the but who tively with Workers operating mines the end coal America the exclusive or the conclusion strike representative ap- strike.” hereinabove, propriate forth set September down on Her decision came together jointly other Re- Op- 29, 1964, (reported as Sewanee spondents (except New Sewanee and Association, erators Floyd), together persons or with other decision affirmed this description appropri- within 1965, expressing May 17, its view separately, may or ate mutu- appropriate included agreed ally upon Respond- between the Opera- former members Sewanee Coal ents, any them, UMW, or who were still busi- tors Association period, a reasonable but not less than ness, also, but months, agreement if reached, embody understanding operating re- such now but who “those not signed agreement.” operating (emphasis in a mines either before sume old strike, supplied) or conclusion of the after including also those individuals controlling who had or interest sole III. corporation member which was a Au- and Order of The above Decision Operators Association of Sewanee Coal gust 22, just five entered under corporation oper- who form another strike, years geo- after commencement ate a new different mine on the presented opportunity (Em- first graphic here area involved.” judicial review obtain phasis supplied.) multi-employer group. inclusion May A consistent with the certification bargain- Presumably has been no there 7, 1965. decision was issued on June multi-employer unit between UMW, July, made a demand the United Mine Workers since respondents all the and Tennessee We read December re- No Products with them. long product procedure the end sponse to these was made demands by the herein reviewed as a command 1, 1965, charges on of refusal November which, enterprise NLRB that by filed Amend- to UMW. were beginning Decem- of the UMW 1966, charges in ed filed March a member of or had au- ber was April complaint here on Association to bar- thorized the Sewanee Hearing on this involved issued. was it, again gain in mine coal shall ever September complaint had in was first without bar- the State Tennessee find- trial and a decision of a examiner gaining with Mine Workers. the United petitioner respondents Ten- all guilty nessee Products violations mining persuaded that We are (5) 8(a) (1) Act came Section operation on whether carried as a sole Decision 1967. The down March part- proprietorship, member of a as a affirming and Order of form, nership, corporate or in whose August came down on Trial Examiner by destroyed was business strike and recom- Trial Examiner’s operator’s inability to meet order, adopted by the proffered mended contract terms UMW re-entering concerns, ex- some 43 should be out of ever commanded that closed agreed operators paragraph mining except In this the UMW business boycott produced in to coal not con- terms. formity agreement. with the national numerous occasions have had We faithfully complied UMW with Para- great power consider graph inA all collective Ten- fields of in the coal Mine Workers agreements entered into. greatly power en- This nessee. who UMW struck refused dealings between the hanced agree to the national mining companies contract. big act- UMW Ramsey replete record in evi- Op- with ing together as the Bituminous Coal picketing, dence of mass force and vio- Wholly apart from Association. erators lence.” 416 F.2d at 1198. illegally conspired the UMW whether pur- BCOA, the aim and Ramsey it was case to in this referred any- pose require that quotation reported Ramsey v. United south- attempting in to mine coal one Workers, F.Supp. (E.D. Mine signing only by so eastern Tennessee do 1967), by equal Tenn. en banc divi aff’d living up the Nation- the terms Ramsey sion of this Court et al. v. Agreement Wage al Bituminous Coal Workers, (6th United Mine 416 F.2d 655 supplemented Pro- 1950 as Cir. That case covered substanti Wage Paragraph A of Clause. tective ally history period the same of the violent Wage provided: this Clause mining of coal in southeastern Tennessee. Concerning Judge. period, During this period Wilson “A. of this Con- tract, said: the United Mine Workers of into, party America will not enter period “In op- since 1960 the coal to, agreement permit any nor or will erators in the Southeastern Tennessee understanding covering wages, any coal field have compete been unable to ap- or hours other conditions of work survive the T.V.A. coal market plicable covered this under the National Bituminous Coal Contract on basis other than those Wage Agreement. many While in in- specified any ap- in this Contract appears stances this to have been due plicable District Contract. The United antiquated mining methods Mine Workers of America will dili- equipment causes, or other the fact gently perform and enforce without nevertheless since 1960 remains discrimination or favor the conditions single there has not been a instance of of this Contract and will use and ex- mining operation successful coal continuing ercise its best to ob- efforts the Southeastern coal field Tennessee compliance tain full therewith each under the National Bituminous Coal parties signatory and all the thereto.” Wage Agreement spite and this in the fact that alterna-

In the case Tennessee Consolidated feasible facing tive most Coal, coal Workers, et al. v. United operate area under the recently national 1969), F.2d 1192 an- go contract or out business.” Court, dealing nounced F.Supp. (Emphasis supplied.) at 430. seeking complete the Mine Workers con- mining trol of Tennes- southeastern reading From a of the record here and Judge see, Weick observed: from other cases such as Gibbs v. United America, “The record Mine contains an Workers of admission 343 F.2d 609 1965), reversed, counsel for UMW that the PWC Mine [the Workers Wage Gibbs, 715, v. 1130, Price Clause contained in con- 383 U.S. 86 S.Ct. 16 (1966), tract between L.Ed.2d 218 Bitumin- it clear that is Operators organization ous Coal attempted was Association] ‘quid pro quo.’ compete Paragraph A with was de- the Mine Workers was Paragraph B, manded con- Southern Labor BCOA. Union. The few taining promise signatory operate mine tried with- who operators, signing was demanded out UMW. the Uniform National Bitu-

177 dynamited. equipment Agreement 1950 Wage and were mine Coal minous tipples mine Wage were burned Clause Protective with guards upon. Operators with men or were fired union so to do without tried mines Union. were forced to abandon their Labor of the Southern members personal equipment for reasons of grave spectacular violence and. The par- safety, equipment with the mines is set out efforts attended suffering heavy from mine flood- losses ticularity Mine Workers in United ing men (Grundy Min- were and vandalism. Several Local No. America v. intrepid operator Union, was killed. One ing Company) Labor Southern dynamite (1964), Mine intended victim thrown United NLRB 176 146 speeding car, yard America, into but from Local No. his Workers Mining Company) he seized the lethal bundle and removed (Grundy and Southern cap just Union, it went off. 244 seconds before 146 NLRB Labor certainly Mine While it adds luster to the United of these cases In both occasion, there were to violence violence victims convicted Workers were upon home of the charged. both sides. U.M. The damag- Representative District was W. Mining attempt operate did by dynamite. ed Four local union halls hegem during, of, independently were burned. Union men shot at were who ony Paul Gibbs of the UMW. One 265 burned.” and union homes were using mine, attempted open F.Supp. at 429. employees, as his members SLU employed object of was the violence IV. Mine Workers the United Workers of Gibbs v. Mine the case is within law is clear that it America, F.Supp. (E.D. Tenn. power together put the Board’s so- review, our affirmance certify multi-employer group and called upon a hold decision was reversed Gibbs union which will be the exclusive proof that the that there not clear agent of all for the entity, responsible for UMW, employers multi-employer within the depredations of its members. the violent group. In NLRB Truck Drivers’ v. Gibbs, U.S. Workers Union, 643, 1 L.Ed. U.S. 77 S.Ct. Judge Ramsey, District S.Ct. Supreme 2d said: Court that followed Wilson described the events compelling involved and is that here conclusion “[T]he Congress progress. claimed to be still in intended ‘that the Board should continue established admin- respect to the strike which oc- “With practice certifying istrative multi- curred December employer units, and intended leave which has in effect since that judgment specialized to the Board’s * * * date, clear the evidence is concerning questions inevitable multi- accompanied the strike has been employer bargaining to arise bound picketing, much violence and mass ” the future.’ 77 S.Ct. U.S. property sides destruction. Both at 647. dispute have the effects suffered violence, power of such but order multi- sought those miners who to cross the from does derive picket statutory Instead, per- much the lines suffered enactment. violence. at- worse Without mitted as an instrument of the National tempting record, may duty pro- policy to itemize the Board’s Labor —the into, peace through be said homes shot motion of industrial effec- dynamited by bargaining. validity burned or unidentified tive dumped upon power any given assailants. Coal was the Board's exercise of highway. then, depends, Trucks and were fired cars circumstance whether upon poles purposes it numerous Power Act. times. will effectuate 178 unusual circumstances. case Board’s determinations Such is the

In this Circuit, led neither of the orders have effective view Tenth see NLRB v. neither, peace; Works, Inc., Tulsa Sheet nor industrial Metal 367 F.2d view, they (10th 1966), Board, itself, in calculated to serve 55 Cir. our Associates, Inc., attempt sanc- see Retail The Board’s 120 NLRB ends. perpetuation of a 395 Here deal- we are not tion the creation ing hegemony Ten- in southeastern with individual of mem- withdrawals unques- nessee, therefore, multi-employer stand bers from If cannot a unit. being unit, there came into a such last- tioned. ing period for the short of the abortive multi-employer unit is a crea UMW, negotiations such unit with the based, inception, ture at its consent completely destroyed by unusual was employers. employees and their NLRB length in circumstances outlined at Team Local International Bhd. of opinion. (2nd sters, F.2d A.L.R.3d 800 Furthermore, it is doubtful Sklar, Cir. In NLRB v. 316 F.2d Grundy Mining a ever became member (6th 1963), we said: Cir. multi-employer group. Its mem- “Membership employer of an in multi- bership in Sewanee was conditioned employer wholly voluntary. is unit employees a choice of the UMW unit can be created with the con- bargaining agent. their Such condition may employers. sent The Board view, never, under our fulfilled. any employer join not force multi- Additionally, request by the Southern employer prevent unit or him from ex- separate Labor Union for a election ercising right his there- withdraw Grundy employees made clear appropriate from anat time. The fact part not intend to be did that MAD had been a member of multi-employer of a In NLRB v. unit. multi-employer consign did Teamsters, Local Internat’l Bhd. of to that status forever. The Board (2nd F.2d Cir. 12 A.L.R.3d 800 recognized employer may has an 1964), the said: Court multi-employer withdraw from the “One basic test the multi- whether provided clearly evinces an ap- unit was created appropriate pur- time its intentions of proval, express implied, of the em- suing bargain- course individual in ployees in each sin- constituent ing.” 316 F.2d at 150. gle-employer F.2d at 47. units.” NLRB, In Universal Insulation v. 361 F. (Emphasis supplied.) 1967), 2d 406 Cir. we held that un original his from dissent Deci- special der the case one em facts of September 30, sion Order ployer’s attempt to withdraw from a Boyd Board Member Leedham stated: multi-employer unit, after that unit begun bargaining Grundy’s currently quali- and had at a arrived “I construe union, untimely. contract with application membership We fied there referred to upon separate NLRB several cases Sewanee as conditioned Creations, majority v. Sheridan certification of a union as the (2nd 1966) representative employees. F.2d 245 appeared Grundy's Cir. per employ se would, therefore, announce a rule that an I self direct a deter- untimely bargain among Grundy’s er’s withdrawal after mination em- election begun except they has ployees. on mutual consent. If select same bar- gaining representative Board relies on our In decision chosen ma- sulation jority that of Second Circuit in the multi-em- However, Sheridan. ployer approve Circuit would Second I them in Spun-Jee Corporation, hand, NLRB v. other unit. (2nd 1967) Grundy’s employees F.2d 379 select a made clear that event that per yield representative, se rule of Sheridan repre- different or no would

179 Act, 158(a) (1) sentative, they from of the be excluded and § would U.S.C.A. claiming (2),4 multi-employer unit and con- these contracts dom either separate appropriate or inated or interfered with the formation a stitute unrepresented.” or of a union administration and consti be providing support tuted to the SLU. persuaded that the events We are charges These consolidated de were and of October the election before and after 8(a) (1) (5) viola cided consenuality 1963, destroyed 15, Respondents tions discussed above. and, justify in all to the creation needed Sycamore Poplar asserted defense events, of a multi-em the continuation pro the six-month statute limitations ployer effort unit. abortive Act, 10(b) vided Section agree to come Sewanee Association 160(b)5 U.S.C.A. § the commence ment with UMW before latter, strike, by the called ment of addition their defense withdrawal, limitations, Poplar from what did not foreclose the statute multi-employer may invalidity Sycamore have once ever assert ultimate circumstances under unusual bar existed certification of UMW as the present. gaining agent here for them them absolves any 8(a) It has violation of § are also of the view that in all We held, however, that whether there the certification events the time not, has valid certification or been a as the UMW exclusive employer’s entry into with a contract an agent Tennessee Products may one union considered violative be respondents on June other was made there existed serious Act where legiti 1965, there not in existence a membership question mately multi-employer identifiable contractually rec employees in the union required with could ognized by company. v. We so hold.2 UMW. Company, Electric 296 F.2d North 1961); Signal (6th NLRB v. Cir. alleged 8(a) (2) Section (5th Gas, Cir. & 303 F.2d Oil notations. 1962); Packers, Inc. Iowa Beef respondents Poplar July NLRB, Cir. F.2d Company Company Sycamore Coal 1964); Container National NLRB v. into entered collective 3 (2nd Corp., 211 F.2d 525 agreements Un Labor with the Southern July no the United ion. On If there was evidence charge Sycamore-Poplar em whether all of the Workers filed con (2) them, 8(a) (1) majority ployees, or a tracts violated Sections restrain, with, (1) it un- co- 2. our makes interfere or The basis for decision necessary we contentions discuss the in the exercise of erce practices charges rights guaranteed of unfair labor in section 157 of that all title; limitations the statute of are barred (2) interest between the interfere with the that conflict of to dominate or any bar and its members should an la- formation administration however, We, favoring organization financial bor or contribute order union. ** support to be contentions it: consider both or other without merit.” * ** 160(b) Provided, 5. That “§ upon complaints 3. is confused as to whether The record shall issue based practice occurring entities, two such or whether unfair more than there were labor they single filing together prior constituted enter- six months to the operated charge prise one H. Wil- Board and the service owned Flynn. against This, however, copy person lis con- thereof * * trolling importance charge here. whom such is made (a) practies. 158. labor It “§ Unfair practice shall be an unfair employer— question tinguished execution, SLU, critical from of the the .of agreement The Trial Exam an remained unanswered. as this constitutes a regard. finding practice only iner made suable unfair making following of is on the General six The burden Counsel months the agreement.” sup 423, forward at 80 come with evidence the 362 U.S. port NLRB Mur of violation. v. a claim S.Ct. at 830. Mfg. Co., 509, ray F.2d 513 Ohio 326 finding We therefore hold of the 1964); (6th Milk Co. Cir. Lawson (2) by 8(a) (1) a of violation Section ; (6th 1963) NLRB, 756, F.2d Cir. 760 Sycamore-Poplar was invalid. Co., F.2d Cleveland NLRB v. Trust is, of Enforcement order the Board’s 95, respects, in all denied. strong What there evidence was ly suggested EDWARDS, Judge, dissenting. Flynn’s operation Circuit was .one, Grundy, a try small an of offshoot In two Tennessee consolidated cases operate SLU, with which union Corporation & Products Chemical seeks sought separate election of Grun review and the Labor Rela- National dy’s employees. We entertain serious tions seeks of enforcement orders proofs doubt the established that 12) (167 re- the Board No. N.L.R.B. Flynn-SLU the contract violated Section quiring opera- certain Tennessee mine 8(a) (2). However, we will not under bargaining engage tors to in collective it, prosecu take to resolve satisfied that with the United Mine Workers. charged tion of the violation was barred Although this dis- record contains both provided by the limitation Section putes disputes of in- fact bitter 10(b). fact, from outline of ferences broad charge The of violation of Section undisputed may facts be stated: 8(a) (1) (2) was not made until September coal com- July 1, 1965, year almost a after the panies in Tennessee formed southeastern July accused contract or contracts of Operators the Coal Associa- Sewanee violation, If there was a purpose bargaining tion for with date occurred. assertion of Many the United Workers. contract, the Board that to run for companies previous his- these had had a years, continuing violation, three was a bargaining tory of collective disposed

was considered and UMW. Supreme opinion Lodge Court’s in Local Operators The Sewanee Coal Associa- No. 1424 v. National Labor Relations tion and the met in collective four 362 U.S. 4 L.Ed. S.Ct. bargaining sessions No late 1962. 2d 832 where the Court said: agreement reached, in late De- sense, then, “In complaints real cember out on UMW went upon’ in this case are ‘based the un- strike. This record indicates agreement, lawful execution of continuing. strike is still though enforcement, continuing, for its continuing solely by is a progress, After violation rea- was in existing petitioned election, son of only union circumstances an 1963; justify date To October execution. re- was con- election liance on ducted for those circumstances on the of the 41 coal ground companies the maintenance in effect which the NLRB had found agreement continuing appropriate to be the is a vio- lifting representing support lation is to all of Associa- Sewanee operators. majority tion limitations bar a characterization apt challenged. opéra- ballots cast were becomes when that bar challenged already has tors because been lifted. Put another also the election way, pre-election They 10(b) proviso if the is to also chal- violence. § given lenged effect, enforcement, appropriateness bar- as dis- employers’ subsequent to the cluded in the gaining unit because recogni- them to withhold election, ordered in June until dissolved tion SLU unless and Operators Association directors union. It found that certified that its board resolution .of State of the SLU contract was Tennessee maintenance the surrender 8(a) 8(a) (1) (2) violation of § Charter. the Act. challenges hearing, After proceedings produced peti- ruled that by the Board which These the decided not been de- multiemployer tion to in the Tennessee Products unit had review the appropriate, petition stroyed case to be and an enforcement and continued currently invalidated had not been Basham which the election case are before that had violence, won the UMW and us. June election. On appear require Five issues discus- bargaining as the the UMW certified sion: production all representative for 1) bargaining multiemployer Is the employees of the Sewanee maintenance ap- legally unit as follows: operators described propriate and valid? operators mining who were 2) “[Those] pre- Was there such a record of Sewanee formerly members setting require election violence as to including Association, Operators Coal holding aside a the election new one? operating who re- but those not now 3) bargaining Should the order set be- operating either old mines sume companies aside some because or the conclusion after fore gone out of business? including indi- strike, those also 4) Should the Board’s order be set controlling or had sole viduals who aside because of conflicts in- claimed a corporation interest in a terest between the and the em- UMW Operators Coal member of Sewanee ployees represent, it seeks or because corpo- form another who Association of asserted of the UMW violations anti- operate or different a new ration and trust statutes? geographic in- here area mine in the 5) 10(b) NLRA, Does of the Section volved.” 160(b) U.S.C. bar or some § bargaining. requested then UMW practice findings all of unfair refusal, practice com- unfair labor On of the Board ? Meantime, plaint filed. Multiemployer Bargaining Unit Flynn formed the operator named had Companies, Sycamore Poplar Coal undisputed noted, As the record is signed July 16, a con- and on operators protest the coal who now Labor Union tract the Southern bargaining multiemployer originally hearing (SLU). was conducted A Operators founded the Sewanee Coal As- findings a Trial Examiner who entered voluntarily express pur- sociation and a recommended order. pose bargaining with the UMW. Fur- ther, the acts relied to show intent August 22,1967, adopted place to dissolve Sewanee did not take un- findings and or- Trial Examiner’s negotiations, til after failure of the call- past of now dis- dered that strike, holding of the UMW and their successors solved Sewanee representation of the election. 8(a) their cease violations Sections (1) (5) importance 8(a) Also National Labor in relation 158(a) (1) appropriateness Act, Board-designated Relations U.S.C. §§ bargain collectively (5) bargaining (1964), and is the fact the 41 period disparate reasonable are means a group. contrary, The Board of not than 12 months. unrelated less On the Poplar Sycamore in- also found record shows that all of the engaged mining negotiated through three Southern Tennes had been Two Tennessee. see Coal Producers Association. southeastern counties bargaining history companies, also Tennessee reflects the Sewanee part companies on the intent and Tennessee Consolidated Products multiemployer Company, or basis owned controlled continuing clearly coal-bearing one. This is evi virtually land in all Practically all denced fact 1962 the counties. those three employers mining who had en con- theretofore in the three counties the coal gaged joint arrange- in informal was done under lease cerned as banded themselves into a formal either Tennessee Products ments with in sociation whose charter reveals the Consolidated. Tennessee tention of its members to adhere Nonetheless, operators protest bargaining. multiemployer And it appropriateness confirmed the fact that Sewanee claiming prior history col- actually behalf of its members entered bargaining lective showed individual col- negotiations into a with the UMW on bargaining contracts, and that the lective multiemployer In basis. view of this demonstrates no record intent background manifesting the intention by group to be bound action. As far as bargain to Sewanee’s members Grundy concerned, and Consolidated are agreement jointly, find we in they joined that each of assert them UMW, by petition its well only Sewanee Association on the condi- by prior bargaining its has course tion of an certification a union a intent, manifested similar that an as among employees their individual units.1 appropriate sociation-wide at unit contentions, As to these the Trial Ex- this time. aminer and found as follows: “We consider next the issue whether first “We consider conten Sewanee’s Grundy’s employees should be included controlling history tion that there is no in the association unit or should consti- multiemployer on a separate Grundy argues tute a unit. support contention, To basis. that that it should not be included in the primarily prac Sewanee relies on the unit with other members sign employers separate, tice to ap- Sewanee at because the time its though identical, agreements with the plication for admission into that as- Union. But that circumstance is not sociation it withheld from Sewanee necessarily determining decisive in authority final to be- appropriate multiemployer whether an half. unit has been established. Associa may tion-wide appropriate units appears be “As from the minutes of a though separate even contracts are meeting of Sewanee in held October signed,4 multiemployer bargaining or 1962, Grundy, Consolidated, has been conducted on the basis of Products at requested per- that time an informal association.5 The test mission become members employer parties whether ‘ * * * Sewanee, but on the condition manifested by an intent to be bound nego- association would not group rather than individual action.6 tiate for Tennessee Consolidated Coal here, the circumstances we believe Company, Grundy Mining Company, past test is met. In the the same and Tennessee Products and Chemical employers who now constitute Corporation until membership United Mine agreed of Sewanee had by duly agreement bound Workers had identical certified that Consolidated and Products had Board election.’ joined 1. Tennessee Products in this contention but has it in advanced this court. herein, hearing only “Thus, both a “At UMW a Board election con- representative an official of ducted an association-wide will Grundy Mining Company Grundy determine testified whether will be bargaining. group at session between bound If first representative representative union is certified as the Sewanee and Grundy unit, Grundy Grundy not to of all stated negotia- thereby will be considered bound become a member same tions ‘a union’ was certified. extent as other until hand, Sewanee. the other if no here, question “The critical there- certified, Grundy’s application union is given fore, to be concerns the effect lapse by membership will reason application Grundy’s conditional the failure of the condition. There- membership At first Sewanee. fore, concerning question since the might suggest Grundy’s glance, action Grundy’s membership in can Sewanee want it did not be bound be settled in an as- election very bargaining. group fact But unit, we shall include sociation-wide sought a multiem- admission appropriate the unit ployer indicates its interest association herein. bargain- participating in collective “Accordingly, we find that multiemployer More- on a basis. comprising all mem- over, Grundy not indicate either did Operators’ bers Sewanee Coal As- UMW, other members sociation, including Grundy Min- requesting member- time after ing Company, appropriate. We fur- commenced, is bargaining ship, or after following employees ther find longer that a no wished become it appropriate pur- for constitute a unit member, pursue it desired to poses bargaining of within collective bargaining. an individual course meaning 9(b) of the of Section We included in the con- also note that production Act: All and maintenance proposed tract to UMW ‘A,’ styled classification a mine Association, Operators’ Sewanee Coal relatively describing large, mecha- Inc., excluding clerical office em- nized mine as such ployees, professional employees, tech- operates. circumstances, we In these owner-opera- employees, guards, nical Grundy’s as action manifest- construe foremen, super- tors, other mine ing join an intention to Sewanee and as in the Act. visors defined subject only represented be it union condition of certification “4. Printers, Employing 122 Belleville an basis. That association-wide NLRB 350. contemplated condition a certification “5- Com- Harbison-Walker Refractories in an pany, on an election association- based NLRB 137 support wide unit finds also “6. Inc., Press, 140 A. B. Hirshfield NLRB No. 35.” meeting, ad- minutes of the Sewanee indicated, great As was a there deal Products, above, verted where undisputed evidence —much —to Grundy, are listed Consolidated support findings. conjunctive imposing the condi- Moreover, has tion. as Consolidated Further, policy ex- national labor own, pressed by would places responsibility of its union law determining appropriate bargain- for on the basis of an to be certified the Board. 29 U.S.C. § election an association-wide 159(b) (1964). including companies, named the three Products, Grundy for and Consolidated While the of the Board on this decision unconditional members become subject beyond judicial review, is not original.) (Emphasis Supreme it clear an Sewanee. Court has made 184 bargaining ployer

appropriate purpos (Sewanee) unit determina- association bargaining tion should not unless it is es of be disturbed collective arbitrary. subject Supreme agreement this UMW. The fact an reached, called, Court said: not that a. strike was sought that the then to dissolve appro “The issue as to what unit is destroy ap Sewanee did not serve bargaining priate for is one propriateness bargain of Sewanee as a laid down no absolute rule law is ing unit. NLRB Colo v. Southwestern statute, none should be de Ass’n, rado Contractors F.2d 360 379 necessity large It cision. involves (10th 1967); Cir. Insulation Universal discretion, measure informed Corp. NLRB, (6th v. 361 F.2d 406 Cir. final, if not the decision of the 1966); Creations, NLRB v. Sheridan rarely While do is to be disturbed. we (2d 1966), F.2d cert. 357 245 Cir. say not that a determination 1005, 711, denied, 385 U.S. 87 17 S.Ct. representation cannot so unrea (1967). L.Ed.2d 544 arbitrary as to exceed the sonable power, Board’s we are clear case, In the Universal Insulation question not decision in does do so. Circuit said: settled, power That our end.” is “Universal contends is not NLRB, Packard Car Co. v. 330 Motor bound the new contract because 485, 789, 491-492, L. 91 U.S. S.Ct. its withdrawal from Association. (1947). Ed. 1040 However, multiemployer ‘ * * * designation multiemployer a vital factor in the ef- arbitrary where units within policy fectuation of the national operators voluntarily v. Teamsters Local said: S.Ct. Checker Cab 1966), cert. discretion S.Ct. tions primarily the future.’ to v. Teamsters Local inevitable istrative is often a difficult and delicate review.” employer bargaining bound to arise in ance to effectuate national sibility, should to Clearly employer units, and In this last Congress “The ^[******] “[T]he 715, Board’s 77 S.Ct. continue which the function in 1 L.Ed.2d 676 practice compelling (Footnotes omitted.) questions L.Ed.2d 546 intended denied, Co., our subject the National case the NLRB. NLRB v. specialized judgment at instant its Congress 449, supra formed a multiem- 385 U.S. established F.2d 692 to striking concerning intended ‘that conclusion is that certifying 353 U.S. Supreme limited (1967); case Labor Rela- committed that bal- 1008, 353 U.S. to judicial respon- admin- multi- multi- policy Court leave coal er Electric pany, started. withdrawal negotiations en Custard must to withdraw from voluntary B. v. N.L.R.B. 569 865 time its intention to do so. N. L. R. ship 1963) and the Board has ruled that While it pany, terms of the L. promoting employees’ strengthened National Labor ing representative an Truck Drivers untimely B.R. employer (1964); U.S. ain clearly 147 Sklar, 281 F.2d 893 multiemployer The is N.L.R.B. and that an v. Jeffries Banknote Com- association as its from a cannot be absent union consent once Employees, recognized C M and it follows that Company, evince at an on a new contract have (1964); 316 negotiated 77 S.Ct. who has & Construction Kroger Company, collective Local Union Relations Board F.2d multiemployer 843 is bound it, (9th peace employer Ice Cream effective (1964); designated 145 that member- 142 N.L.R.B. unit 145 N.L.R.B. contract. bargaining.’ appropriate Cir. 1 L.Ed.2d (6th employer No. bargain- through is free wholly 1960). Walk- unless Froz- Com- unit Cir. 148 N. an

185 meeting organize recently elect from (1963). rule has This SLU; Grundy Local of in officers for a Circuit the Second followed UMW, May 7, Local Creations, and on v. Sheridan N.L.R.B. engaged supporters 1966), (March, and under its F.2d 245 prevent violence to threats it is concluded mob case, facts of this go replacements Grundy from Uni- followed here.” it should be Grundy supra Corp., to work at the minesite. F.2d Insulation versal at 408. “These occurred in the two incidents recently re- context an economic strike called have been These views against commencing Grundy UMW different court this iterated 26, 1962; petition Newspaper December UMW’s in Detroit context factual February herein, for a NLRB, filed F.2d Publishers Ass’n multiemployer unit of mem- (6th I can- record this Cir. On including Grundy’s; desig- employees’ bers’ in the Board arbitrariness find charges multiemployer as- UMW’s unlawful nation by Grundy independent sistance unit case. union, charges, Board under practice, processing blocked the Pre-election Violence representation petition. UMW’s Respondents the elec- also assert agreement May 1963, a settlement it was set aside because tion should be respect charges UMW’s Sec- permeated of violence. with an aura 8(a) (2) approved tion assistance held, believe, I on substantial Director, Regional May and on record, that since whole evidence petition filed herein SLU no months five there was violence seeking separate em- showing preceding no election ployees. a multi- Board found any coercive the union was involved including Grundy, period, violence within that conduct majority appropriate, event probable effect too remote have a employees in voted NLRB v. Bar-Brook on the election. indicated, SLU, and, as above 1955); Mfg. Co., 220 F.2d 832 conducted on October the election was Sugar, Inc., 108 N.L.R.B. Southdown 15, 1963. Regional Director, we “Unlike the with this issue Board itself dealt circumstances conclude length opinion: in its at some outlined, miscon above UMW’s strike Regional excepted Di- “UMW Act, duct, found could violative of sustain rector’s recommendations impact on voter substantial relating portions objections choice in the election. free view pre-election to elec- violence to and lapse of the than months more tioneering crowding people and at of the vio from the occurrence strike polls. holding question in to the of the lence any election, show and the absence alleged pre-election “The violence ing of time in this interval occurred related to two incidents which conduct directed at other coercive May April than in and more find we Each in months before election. objections on in the incidents relied separate subject cident was the to the election too were unrelated and findings charges, which resulted probable upon to have a effect remote (1) 8(b) (A) As coercion.4 Section the election.5 in those the Trial Examiner found UMW, cases, April portions “As to those the ob two engaged jections supporters relating electioneering Local against crowding Regional polls, and violence in mob threats at large Grundy prevent them that a number Director strikers, nonstrikers, prior Reg- including persons issued to the issuance report ional Director’s herein. congregated replacements and others “5. See, g. Sugar, Inc., immedi on the sidewalk and street e. Southdown Stores, Krambo Food ately polling place outside 742, 743; 101 NLRB The LaClede Gas during polling period. Light Co., 80 NLRB vacant election was conducted Jasper was selected as the site of the “6 Jasper, square at store courthouse part election in because not Tennessee,6 day on a the Criminal any pre-election the scene of violence Four Board Court in session. adequate law enforcement was suggested by agents conducting available. The site was were the election attorneys for Sewanee and Marshals. The assisted two U. S. approved by Regional Director. from crowd to number was estimated “7. exceptions, In its UMW asserts that times, various 2000 at pictures it knows of four taken of deep four six line of voters extend pictures the election and attached those polling from the entrance pictures appeared to its brief. The place newspapers, down the sidewalk a block or accompanying area and the orderly stories described the crowd as polls opened, more. While the and the election as without disorder. persons circulated several unidentified addition, UMW attached affidavits voting poll about outside the line officers, from law enforcement mer- wearing reading ing place placards chants, county officials and other citi- Jasper zens of who observed the election ‘VOTE MINE WORK FOR UNITED proper orderly.” and found it AND A ERS BE ABLE TO GET Agent not PENSION.’ The did At times in National Labor Relations specify any electioneering ‘no area’ suggestions Board cases are advanced representatives but did caution not to performing Board in its duties polling place during enter the the elec listens with a more attentive ear to wit- Regional tion. Director his based complaining nesses for labor unions than finding crowding concerning upon presented by employers, witnesses pictorial during in evidence submitted consequence its decisions as a are vestigation.7 However, biased. It he does instructive read the opinions of point the Trial Examiner any specific and the incidents of dis Board in practice the two unfair orderliness conduct but coercive complaints against merely couples the evidence of elec involving alleged Workers violent and tioneering crowding immediately coercive conduct it and its polling place outside with the much dispute. UMW, [Grundy Local 7083 earlier violence incidents Mining Union, and Southern Labor Co.] which we have found to be too remote (1964); UMW, 146 N.L.R.B. 176 Local to have an the election. effect [Grundy Mining and Southern Co.] Union, Labor 146 N.L.R.B. 244 that, “We conclude under the facts here, presence of a crowd or a On the records in each of two massing of voters the entrance to cases, testimony oppos- where the polling place placard elec- ing parties sharp conflict, was in tioneering by persons on unidentified against respondent Board found the facts behalf of UMW the area outside the UMW and in each instance the Trial polls, standing alone, impair did not Examiner recommended and the Board the of the exercise free choice in elec- entered a series of cease and desist tion. placed power orders. These orders the government “4. of America, squarely federal Mines Workers 7083, 20; Local No. 146 NLRB No. against continuation of violent or coer- America, and United Mine Workers of Apparently cive conduct. these orders 29, 7244, Local No. 146 NLRB No. effect, though they had some even had In each ease the Examiner's De- Trial yet not final become the date of adopted by Board, cision, later

187 * *." * charge event, full any disputed In whom such is made election. knowledge part 160(b) (1964). 29 on the U.S.C. § representation dis- background of the believe, I did as participation pute Board’s and the showing record must be a con read as coercion suppression of violence and tinuing bargaining demand for on the knowledge to clearly assert entitled part continuing of the UMW re and a concerning expertise conditions bargain part opera fusal to of the day on on the the election site climate at tors. See International Union UAW v. was conducted. this election which 215, App.D.C. NLRB, 124 U.S. 363 F.2d 702, denied, Board’s certification 706-707 cert. 385 I believe degree 973, 510, wide 87 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 436 within “the U.S. 17 this union was (1967). the Labor to entrusted discretion” repre- Congress to in relation Board Similarly, Poplar while the Coal Com- A. J. NLRB v. matters. sentation pany contract with the Labor Southern 324, 67 Co., S.Ct. 329 U.S. Tower signed considerably Union was more (1946). 332 91 L.Ed. than 6 months the unfair la- practice complaint, Poplar’s (i. bor e. re- posed cases issues Other Flynn’s) bargain to refusal was a con- quire discussion. less tinuing illegal recogni- refusal and its continuing up tion of was a act SLU to “Going Out The Effect of practice the date of the unfair labor com- Business” agree- plaint. collective A Products and other Tennessee continued, into, ment entered with one they operators are contend former union while another union is certi- coal, mining not in the business representative fied years, and not in that business for is, believe, I “on its invalid face.” go busi- into that never intend back Lodge 1424, Local Int’l Ass’n of Machin- however, applies, Board order ness. The NLRB, 411, 415, ists v. 362 U.S. 80 S.Ct. go busi- into those who do back (1960). 4 L.Ed.2d 832 also See any specifies em- The order ness. Laughlin Corp., NLRB v. Jones & Steel ployer completely in- “who continues 1, 44, 301 U.S. 81 L.Ed. 893 S.Ct. *** operative and outside the (1937)Virginia Ry. System Fed’n obligation may imposed.” avoid 40, Ry. Employees AFL, Dept., 300 U.S. long operators Obviously, do some as S.Ct. L.Ed. go operation, Board into back (1937). addition, In like the refusal completely order would be ineffective above, referred the continued damage. them, could no but it also do recognition represented of SLU an un- Board’s view nature practice fair labor within the six month’s order, proofs reopen motion to period limitation “as a substantive mat- non-opera- Products’ show Tennessee ter.” Local Cf. Int’l Ass’n Ma- properly tional status was denied. NLRB, supra chinists v. 80 S.Ct. Statute Limitation Antitrust Interest Claims Conflict urge Section also 10(b) NLRA the orders renders Finally, assert —with 10(b) pro- invalid. Section great vigor part of Tennessee on the part: pertinent vides judgment an antitrust Products —that ** * complaint against States in the United the UMW “Provided District upon unfair the Southern District Court

shall issue based UMW, 265 occurring (Ramsey v. practice than more Tennessee aff’d, filing (E.D.Tenn.1967), prior F.Supp. six months 1969), in a case charge serv- F.2d 655 with the Board against represents final person now, appeal here ice thereof adjudication conflict of interest of a prohibit from re-

which would

quiring them from clear, however, that no con- It is

UMW. trade or restraint of

flict of interest in this defense

facts were tendered proceeding. It is also clear to have claimed

the conflict of interest Court the District purchase interest West of an

UMW’s Kentucky terminated, as shown record, District Court

the same years proceeding and election UMW.

before the certification of the

Parenthetically, I note that no issue of pre- refusal to UMW’s us,

sented the Board or to nor would finding. justify

this record petition should dis- review petition

missed. The for enforcement

the orders granted. Board should be

Norman F. F. DACEY and Norman Dacey, doing Es- business as National Planning Council, Appellants, tate

NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION, Appellee. 109-110,

Nos. Dockets 33024-33025. Appeals States Court of

Second Circuit.

Argued 7,Oct. 1969.

Decided Dec. 1969. May 25,

Certiorari Denied See 90 S.Ct. 1819.

Case Details

Case Name: Tennessee Products & Chemical Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Basham Coal Company

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 5, 1970

Citation: 423 F.2d 169

Docket Number: 18463_1

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.