Nat. L. Rel. Bd. v. Wytheville Knitting Mills

4 Citing cases

  1. N.L.R.B. v. Winston Brothers Company

    317 F.2d 771 (9th Cir. 1963)

    See N.L.R.B. v. Citizens News Co., 134 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 1943), in which this court stated that "[T]he fact that a discharged employee may be engaged in labor union activities at the time of his discharge, taken alone, is no evidence at all of a discharge as the result of such activities." Cf., NLRB v. Wytheville Knitting Co., 175 F.2d 238 (3rd Cir. 1949); NLRB v. Spiewak, 179 F.2d 695 (3rd Cir. 1950); NLRB v. Edinburg Citrus Ass'n, 147 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1945). We now turn to a consideration of the Board's order as it relates to Andrus and Fisher, both of whom had worked during the strike.

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Superior Tool Die Company

    309 F.2d 692 (6th Cir. 1962)   Cited 8 times

    As the Board, itself, and other courts have held, in the absence of facts which show an unlawful discriminatory motive based on some protected activity, an employer does not violate the Act by discharging an employee "with whom other employees have refused to work because he has become persona non grata with them." Studebaker Corporation, 110 NLRB 1307, 1321, 1322; N.L.R.B. v. Edinburg Citrus Ass'n., 147 F.2d 353 (C.A.5, 1945); N.L.R.B. v. Wytheville Knitting Mills, 175 F.2d 238, 239, 240 (C.A.3, 1949); N.L.R.B. v. Spiewak Co., 179 F.2d 695, 699-701 (C.A.3, 1949); Queen-Premier-Williams Fur Dressing Corp., 92 NLRB 42. The trial examiner specifically found that respondent had no discriminatory motive in making the discharges here involved, but acted solely in order to keep its plant operating. The conclusion that the discharges of LeMasters and McKibben were discriminatory is not supported by substantial evidence and must be set aside.

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Spiewak

    179 F.2d 695 (3d Cir. 1950)   Cited 14 times

    The Act should not be construed as calling for that sort of result in the light of the particular facts of this phase of the matter. N.L.R.B. v. Wytheville Knitting Mills, 3 Cir., 175 F.2d 238, 240, presented a somewhat similar situation, though in that case there was no violence involved. Certain strikers had addressed vile language to non-strikers crossing their picket line. By reason of this, the balance of the employees refused to work with those strikers.

  4. Pub. Utility Constr., c., Local 274 v. Pub. Serv. Elec

    139 A.2d 1 (N.J. 1958)   Cited 4 times

    ge, or mass picketing; or if the strike itself is unlawful. N.L.R.B. v. Fansteel Metal. Corp., 306 U.S. 240, 59 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed. 627 (1939); United Steelworkers of America,C.I.O. v. N.L.R.B., 100 U.S. App. D.C. 170, 243 F.2d 593, 31 Labor Cases 92,811 (1956), certiorari granted 353 U.S. 921, 77 S.Ct. 682, 1 L.Ed.2d 719 (1957); N.L.R.B. v.Marshall Car Wheel Foundry Co., 218 F.2d 409 (5 Cir. 1955); N.L.R.B. v. Cambria Clay Products Co., 215 F.2d 48 (6 Cir. 1954); N.L.R.B. v. Clearfield Cheese Co., 213 F.2d 70 (3 Cir. 1954); N.L.R.B. v. Thayer Co., 213 F.2d 748 (1 Cir. 1954), cert. den. 348 U.S. 883, 75 S.Ct. 123, 99 L.Ed. 694 (1954); Rubin Bros. Footwear, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 203 F.2d 486 (5 Cir. 1953); N.L.R.B. v. LongviewFurniture Co., 206 F.2d 274 (4 Cir. 1953); Id., after remand, 110 N.L.R.B. 1734 (1954); N.L.R.B. v. Hart CottonMills, 190 F.2d 964 (4 Cir. 1951); In re River FallsCooperative Creamery, 90 N.L.R.B. 257 (1950); N.L.R.B. v. Kelco Corporation, 178 F.2d 578 (4 Cir. 1949); N.L.R.B. v. Wytheville Knitting Mills,Inc., 175 F.2d 238 (3 Cir. 1949); N.L.R.B. v. Mt.Clemens Pottery Co., 147 F.2d 262 (6 Cir. 1945); N.L.R.B. v. Indiana Desk Co., 149 F.2d 987 (7 Cir. 1945); N.L.R.B. v. Draper Corporation, 145 F.2d 199 (4 Cir. 1944); N.L.R.B. v. Clinchfield Coal Corp., 145 F.2d 66 (4 Cir. 1944); N.L.R.B. v. Ohio Calcium Co., supra; Wilson Co. v. N.L.R.B., supra; McNeely Price Co. v. N.L.R.B., 106 F.2d 878 (3 Cir. 1939); Standard Lime Stone Co. v.N.L.R.B., 97 F.2d 531, 535 (4 Cir. 1938); The FansteelCase, 52 Harv. L. Rev., supra; Matthews, Labor Relations andthe Law (1953) 733-742; C.C.H., supra ยงยง 4735, 4070, p. 4392, et seq. Reference is made to the large number of cases only to illustrate the varied types of misconduct which cause forfeiture of the right of restoration to work. N.L.R.B. v. Fansteel Metal. Corp., supra, [ 306 U.S. 240, 59 S.Ct. 495] contains the source material to which all of the cited decisions turn for authority.