From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

National Labor Relations Bd. v. Reynolds Corp.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 25, 1948
168 F.2d 877 (5th Cir. 1948)

Opinion

No. 11422.

June 25, 1948.

Petition for the enforcement and cross-petition to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board, sitting at Washington, D.C.

Petition by the National Labor Relations Board for the enforcement of an order of the Board, sitting at Washington D.C., and cross-petition by the Reynolds Corporation to set aside the order.

Enforcement denied.

A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board and Owsley Vose, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, both of Washington, D.C., and Paul S. Kuelthau, Regional Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.

Elmer M. Cunningham and Walter L. Rice, both of Richmond, Va., for respondent.

Before HOLMES, WALLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.


The evidence of unfair labor practices, upon which the Board predicates its order to reinstate George Porter, Sidney Gibson, Thomas Paschal, and Ruby Collins with back pay is lacking in that substantiality and probity which the law requires. Not only does the evidence fall short of proving that these employees were discharged for union activity or adherence, but there appears to be an utter lack of coercion or intimidation of any kind or character. On the contrary, the employees were reminded, orally and in writing, from time to time by the management, as well as by some of the same supervisory employees against whom the charges were laid, that anyone who wished could join or not join the Union without risk of losing his or her job.

Furthermore, we cannot see that any good purpose would be served in approving for enforcement, if and when the company ever resumes operations, the other portions of the Board's order. The plant was a Government owned one, making articles entirely for the Government, and at the end of the hostilities it was turned back to the Government and has not been in operation by the respondent for a number of years. This phase of the case seems to be moot.

We decline to enforce the order.

For fuller information see our former decision in this case: N.L.R.B. v. Reynolds Corporation, 5 Cir., 155 F.2d 679.

This conclusion renders it unnecessary for us to pass upon the question of jurisdiction.


Summaries of

National Labor Relations Bd. v. Reynolds Corp.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 25, 1948
168 F.2d 877 (5th Cir. 1948)
Case details for

National Labor Relations Bd. v. Reynolds Corp.

Case Details

Full title:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. REYNOLDS CORPORATION. REYNOLDS…

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jun 25, 1948

Citations

168 F.2d 877 (5th Cir. 1948)

Citing Cases

N.L.R.B. v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation

Of course, the fact that an employee who is discharged is a union member does not alone justify a finding…

National Labor Bd. v. Fulton Bag, Mills

points, however, we are in full agreement with it. As to the Ethridge discharge, this court, before the…