National Labor Relations Board v. Colonial Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Colonial Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc.

485 F.2d 455, 84 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2528, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7506

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 16, 1973

Docket73-1117

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 485 F.2d 455 (National Labor Relations Board v. Colonial Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc.) 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

National Labor Relations Board v. Colonial Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc., 485 F.2d 455, 84 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2528, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7506 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on the application of the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to § 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act 1 for the enforcement of its order issued May 24, 1972 against Colonial Lincoln Mercury Sales (Colonial). 2 After a careful review of the evidence adduced at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge, it is our considered opinion that the Board’s order should be enforced.

This ease presents an unfortunate “overreaction” by a company to its employees’ legitimate and orderly attempt to organize for collective bargaining purposes. The Board’s conclusion that Colonial violated § 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively interrogating its employees and unlawfully changing its policy regarding employees’ hours is fully supported by the record. Similarly, the § 8(a)(3) and (1) violations found by the Board based on the. discriminatory discharge of employees Jackson, Abbot and Franklin and the company’s refusal to reinstate fifteen employees who participated in the unfair labor practice strike are supported by substantial evidence.

No purpose would be served by a laborious restatement of the facts found by the Administrative Law Judge and adopted by the Board in its order. Colonial has earnestly contended that the Board improperly interpreted and overemphasized the importance of a speech given to its employees by the President of Colonial the day after the company learned of the employees’ union activity. The Board held that although the speech did not amount to an unfair labor practice it could properly be considered as background in reviewing the significance of Colonial’s subsequent acts. We agree. See, Hendrix Manufacturing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 321 F.2d 100, 103 (5th Cir. 1963); N.L.R.B. v. Builders Supply Co. of Houston, 410 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1969).

On the basis of the extensive unfair labor practices revealed in this record, the Board correctly ordered Colonial to bargain with the employees’ chosen representative. Colonial’s conduct completely vitiated any hope of attaining a fair election. See N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969). The Board’s order is in all respects enforced.

1

. 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.

2

. The Board’s decision and order are reported at 197 NLRB No. 3.

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

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on the application of the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to § 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act 1 for the enforcement of its order issued May 24, 1972 against Colonial Lincoln Mercury Sales (Colonial). 2 After a careful review of the evidence adduced at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge, it is our considered opinion that the Board’s order should be enforced.

This ease presents an unfortunate “overreaction” by a company to its employees’ legitimate and orderly attempt to organize for collective bargaining purposes. The Board’s conclusion that Colonial violated § 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively interrogating its employees and unlawfully changing its policy regarding employees’ hours is fully supported by the record. Similarly, the § 8(a)(3) and (1) violations found by the Board based on the. discriminatory discharge of employees Jackson, Abbot and Franklin and the company’s refusal to reinstate fifteen employees who participated in the unfair labor practice strike are supported by substantial evidence.

No purpose would be served by a laborious restatement of the facts found by the Administrative Law Judge and adopted by the Board in its order. Colonial has earnestly contended that the Board improperly interpreted and overemphasized the importance of a speech given to its employees by the President of Colonial the day after the company learned of the employees’ union activity. The Board held that although the speech did not amount to an unfair labor practice it could properly be considered as background in reviewing the significance of Colonial’s subsequent acts. We agree. See, Hendrix Manufacturing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 321 F.2d 100, 103 (5th Cir. 1963); N.L.R.B. v. Builders Supply Co. of Houston, 410 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1969).

On the basis of the extensive unfair labor practices revealed in this record, the Board correctly ordered Colonial to bargain with the employees’ chosen representative. Colonial’s conduct completely vitiated any hope of attaining a fair election. See N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969). The Board’s order is in all respects enforced.

1

. 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.

2

. The Board’s decision and order are reported at 197 NLRB No. 3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 F.2d 455, 84 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2528, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-colonial-lincoln-mercury-sales-inc-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack