Home/Fifth Circuit/Gulf States Manufacturers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Gulf States Manufacturers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

579 F.2d 1298, 99 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2547, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8997
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 15, 1978
Docket77-2406
StatusPublished
Cited by40 cases

This text of 579 F.2d 1298 (Gulf States Manufacturers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gulf States Manufacturers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 579 F.2d 1298, 99 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2547, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8997 (5th Cir. 1978).

Opinions

SKELTON, Senior Judge.

This case is before the Court upon the petition of Gulf States Manufacturing, Inc., (hereafter referred to as the “Company”), pursuant to Section 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 88 Stat. 395, 29 U.S.C. sec. 151, et seq.) to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations [1301]*1301Board issued on June 28, 1977, and reported at 230 NLRB No. 81. The Board filed a cross-application for enforcement. The charging party is the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the “Union”).

In its decision, the Board held that the Company interferred with, restrained and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; that the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union; and that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by laying off employees because of their Union membership and by failing to properly or timely recall or reinstate employees after a strike.1

The underlying facts giving rise to this controversy are generally as follows. The company manufactures prefabricated metal buildings in a highly competitive industry that is seasonal in character. Because of a depression and business slump in the industry in the early part of 1975, the Company froze all wages on March 1,1975, and began laying off workmen from time to time in order to meet the economic pressures it was encountering. All of this was done long before there was any labor union activity among its employees.

I. The Withdrawn Charges Issue

On July 21, 1975, the Union filed a petition seeking to represent the employees of the Company at its Starkville, Mississippi plant as their bargaining agent. An election was ordered to be held on September 12, 1975. On September 11, 1975, the night before the election, the general manager of the Company, Clayton Richardson, made a speech to the employees in which he spoke of the wage freeze of the Company and the freeze on wages existing because of the union election and how long the freezes might last. He also commented on possible changes in work schedules that allowed employees to ride in ear pools to and from work if the Union won the election.

The election was held on September 12, 1975, in which a majority of the employees voted for Union representation. The Company filed timely objections on September 17,1975, in Case No. 26-RC-5064, challenging election procedures and alleging failure to protect the secrecy of the ballot at the’ election. The Union responded by filing unfair labor charges against the Company in Case No. 26-CA-5812, stating in pertinent part as follows:

“h. The above-named employer has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of section 8(a), subsections (1) and (3) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, and these unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
“2. Basis of the Charge (Be specific as to facts, names, addresses, plants involved, dates, places, etc.)
[1302]*1302“Since on or about September 15, 1975, the above-named Employer, by its officers and agents, has temporarily laid off the following employees and others because of their membership in and activities on behalf of International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, a labor organization:
Joe Kimbrough
Jack Griffin
Henry Vaughn
Odell Roberson
Bruce Davis
Oddie Harris
Fred Williams
Jessy Stallings
Willie Buford
Johnny Oswalt
Aaron Mitchell
Steve Carmichal
Timmy Harrelson
The above-named Employer, by its officers and agents, refused to bargain with the above-named labor organization on and after September 15, 1975, by unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment, specifically laying off employees contrary to its prior practice. By the above and other acts, the above-named employer has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.”

The Union filed additional charges against the Company in Case No. 26-CA-5786. The document containing these charges is not in the record and for that reason we are unable to relate the charges verbatim. However, the Company represents that the charges complained of: (1) the aforesaid speech of general manager Richardson; (2) statements made by supervisor Joe Starnes on September 15, 1975, regarding future enforcement of existing Company rules pertaining to work that had not been strictly enforced before the election; (3) the layoffs by the Company of 20 workmen between September 15 and October 1, 1975, when there had been no layoffs in the four months just before the election; (4) the statement made by supervisor, Ervin Perrigan, to certain employees shortly after the election that he would not be able to help them any more and that in the future they would have to go through their stewards and the President of their Union; (5) the statement made about two weeks after the election by supervisor John Hayes to employee Joe Malone that the Union had his automatic raise frozen and if the Union had not gotten in he probably would have gotten his raise, and that he might get it if he got a group of people to sigh a petition to vote the Union out; (6) the statement of supervisor Hayes to employee Jack Griffith that the Union had the wages frozen; (7) the answer of supervisor Perrigan to employee Richard Harris in November, 1975, who asked about a raise, that “the Union’s got things tied up now;” (8) and the statement of Perrigan to Philip Parker that he would not get a raise until the contract was negotiated.

We accept the fact that the above charges of the Union against the Company were contained in Case No. 26-CA-5786 for several reasons. The Company says they were and the Board does not deny it. Such charges were considered as unfair labor practices of the Company by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who tried the case, and they are now urged as such by the Board in its brief. Furthermore, it is significant that all of the events mentioned in the charges occurred before the settlement was made and the charges were withdrawn by the Union with the approval of the Board’s Regional Director on November 11, 1975, as shown below. Even if the charges were not described in detail or with specificity on the forms used by the Union and furnished by representatives of the Board in filing the charges, they are deemed to have been included because of the “catchall” phrase on the forms which stated:

“By the above and other acts, the above-named employer has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.”

This court held in N. L. R. B. v. Central Power & Light Co., 425 F.2d 1318 (5 Cir.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Emmerich Newspapers, Inc. v. Mississippi River Commission
S.D. Mississippi, 2025
MCR Oil Tools v. TRAN
Fifth Circuit, 2024
State of Texas v. EPA
Fifth Circuit, 2024
Turner Industries Group, LLC v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 450
8 F. Supp. 3d 875 (S.D. Texas, 2014)
Carey Salt Company v. NLRB
Fifth Circuit, 2014
Carey Salt Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
736 F.3d 405 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)
Pasco Police Officers' Ass'n v. City of Pasco
938 P.2d 827 (Washington Supreme Court, 1997)
PASCO POLICE OFFICERS'ASS'N v. City of Pasco
938 P.2d 827 (Washington Supreme Court, 1997)
National Labor Relations Board v. The H.P. Townsend Manufacturing Co.
101 F.3d 292 (Second Circuit, 1996)
National Labor Relations Board v. H.P. Townsend Manufacturing Co.
101 F.3d 292 (Second Circuit, 1996)
Southern Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock
779 F. Supp. 1353 (N.D. Georgia, 1991)
The City of South Sioux City the City of Randolph the City of Madison the City of Wakefield Municipal Corporation of the State of Nebraska v. The Western Area Power Administration of the United States Department of Energy William H. Clagett, Administrator, Western Area Power Administration, United States Department of Energy John Herrington, Secretary of Department of Energy and the United States of America, the City of South Sioux City the City of Randolph the City of Madison the City of Wakefield Municipal Corporation of the State of Nebraska v. The Western Area Power Administration of the United States Department of Energy William H. Clagett, Administrator, Western Area Power Administration, United States Department of Energy John Herrington, Secretary of Department of Energy and the United States of America
793 F.2d 181 (Eighth Circuit, 1986)
City of South Sioux City v. Western Area Power Administration of United States Department of Energy
793 F.2d 181 (Eighth Circuit, 1986)
City Cab Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
787 F.2d 1475 (Eleventh Circuit, 1986)
City Cab Company Of Orlando, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
787 F.2d 1475 (Eleventh Circuit, 1986)
Local 730 v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
480 A.2d 1000 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1984)
National Labor Relations Board v. A-1 King Size Sandwiches, Inc.
732 F.2d 872 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)
Ona Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
729 F.2d 713 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)
Ona Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Intervenor. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, Ona Corporation, Intervenor
729 F.2d 713 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)
Ronald E. Payne, Individually and on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. John R. Block, Individually and as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture v. James J. Collins, Movant-Appellant-Intervenor
721 F.2d 741 (Eleventh Circuit, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
579 F.2d 1298, 99 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2547, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gulf-states-manufacturers-inc-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca5-1978.