National Labor Relations Board v. W. R. Hall Distributor, W. R. Hall Transportation and Storage Company, W. R. Hall Moving and Storage, 341 F.2d 359, 10th Cir. (1965)
National Labor Relations Board v. W. R. Hall Distributor, W. R. Hall Transportation and Storage Company, W. R. Hall Moving and Storage, 341 F.2d 359, 10th Cir. (1965)
National Labor Relations Board v. W. R. Hall Distributor, W. R. Hall Transportation and Storage Company, W. R. Hall Moving and Storage, 341 F.2d 359, 10th Cir. (1965)
2d 359
The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order holding
respondent Hall in violation of section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (5), by interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by the Act and
by refusing to bargain in good faith with their certified representative. The order
contains the standard cease and desist provision and requires the posting of
customary notices. Enforcement of the order is resisted upon the principal
claim that the record, considered as a whole, does not contain substantial
evidence supporting the ultimate conclusions of the Board.
whole, although certainly not dictating the conclusions of the Board, gives
adequate support for the issuance of its order. As we stated in NLRB v. Southwestern Porcelain Steel Corp., 317 F.2d 527, 528:
3
unfair labor practice charges against respondent, which were later withdrawn.
Other incidents show that during the seven or eight month period of purported
negotiations the bargaining relationship became increasingly strained and
unfruitful. On May 15, 1962 Toliver filed a third charge against respondent; it
was amended on June 25 and resulted in the Board's complaint, which was
issued on June 29. From this total premise the Board concluded that respondent
had not bargained in good faith and had violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act. We cannot say the conclusion is unwarranted for good faith bargaining
demands more than sterile and repetitive discussion of formalities precluding
actual negotiation, NLRB v. American Nat'l Ins. Co., 343 U.S. 395, 402-404,
72 S.Ct. 824, 96 L.Ed. 1027, and requires a sincere effort to reach agreement
although not agreement itself. Delay, its cause and effect, cooperation between
the parties or its lack, preparation for discussion or its lack, and the
reasonableness or unreasonableness of demands are among those factors which
the fact finder can consider in the difficult task of laying bare the subjective
intent of the parties. Each of these factors is contained within this record and
lends support to the decision of the Board that respondent lacked good faith in
bargaining.
6
The Board also determined that respondent had violated section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by the conduct of Thomas Hall, a son and employee of W. R. Hall.
Respondent also challenges the Board's use of evidence outside the time and
scope of the charge upon which the complaint was based. The charge referred
to unfair labor practices committed 'since on or about February 7, 1962,' and
respondent therefore contends that the Board could not base its conclusions, in
whole or in part, on events occurring prior to that date. While respondent is
correct in pointing out that the complaint is and must be based upon the charge,
it is not restricted thereto. A charge is not a pleading and it need not comply
with the rules of formal pleading; it merely sets in motion the machinery of an
inquiry. Kansas Milling Co. v. NLRB, 10 Cir., 185 F.2d 413, 415. Although the
Board cannot use its own initiative in respect to filing unfair labor practice
charges, Hercules Powder Co. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 297 F.2d 424, 433, it has wide
leeway in including in its complaint allegations unearthed in its investigation of
a charge timely filed related to those alleged in the charge. NLRB v. Waterfront
Employers of Washington, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 946, 955; NLRB v. Reliance Steel
Products Co., 5 Cir., 322 F.2d 49, 53-54; Philip Carey Mfg. Co., Miami
Cabinet Div. v. NLRB, 6 Cir., 331 F.2d 720, 731-732, cert. denied, 379 U.S.
888, 85 S.Ct. 159, 13 L.Ed.2d 92. Since the evidence complained of was
related to the allegations in the charge and was not outside the six month period
specified in section 10(b) of the Act, the Board correctly considered it in
arriving at its conclusion.
9
Respondent's final claim is that Thomas Hall was not a supervisor, that his
actions cannot be attributed to management, and that, in any case, his 'casual'
conversations were so 'trivial' that enforcement of the order should be denied.
There was evidence before the Board that Thomas Hall gave orders to some of
the employees and W. R. Hall testified that he 'depended' on his son,
particularly when he, himself, was not present. It was also shown that his filial
relationship with W. R. Hall gave him a special status among the men, which
the Board properly considered in finding him to be a representative of
management. See NLRB v. Champa Linen Service Co., 10 Cir.,324 F.2d 28,
30; NLRB v. Neiderman, 2 Cir., 334 F.2d 601, 603. The actions themselves,
particularly when considered together, were not trivial and the Board could
correctly find that they constituted a violation of section 8(a)(1).
10
Respondent argues that the promise of $2.25 per hour cannot be construed as a
benefit because its employees were already earning a minimum of $400 per
month. However, the Board held that the offer in the context in which it was
made constituted an illegal interference with the section 7 rights of respondent's
employees