National Labor Relations Board v. Prigg

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Prigg

172 F.2d 948, 23 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2386, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3447

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 25, 1949

DocketNo. 12468

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 172 F.2d 948 (National Labor Relations Board v. Prigg) 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. Prigg, 172 F.2d 948, 23 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2386, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3447 (5th Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Four years after the commission of the unfair labor practices; four years after the completion of the war contracts to build small boats and the reduction of employees in the unit from thirty-one to four; two and one-half years after the making of the Board’s order and months after the repeal of the Act under which the proceedings were had, we are asked to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board, as to the finality and appropriateness of a portion of which the Board itself seemed in such doubt that it expressly reserved to itself the right to modify.¹

There is substantial evidence to justify the Board’s finding that the respondent was guilty of unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain collectively with the Union and in his efforts to prevent the employees from joining same, and the cease-and-desist and post-notices portions of the Board’s order were properly entered and should be enforced.

As to paragraphs 2(a) and 2(h), however, the matters they involved must he returned to the Board for further inquiry and report. For the Board, knowing that war contracts wane over, the lush days gone, the employees of respondent drastically reduced in the wake of the receding activity, and that after the passage of the year's the status quo1 of (he parties might not be restored, made no definite and final order as to these. Instead, it reserved to itself without limitations the right to change the reinstatement and back-pay provisions of its orders according to the demand of succeeding circumstances.

We observe that the Board found: (a) that the general reduction of employees was not discriminatorily motivated but that the six employees ordered reinstated were discriminated against, because of thieir Union adherence, in not being selected to be retained as employees, even though the respondent had hired no new men since such reduction; (b) that under the circumstances sufficient positions might not be available for the the six employees affected; (c) that “it is possible that one or more of the ■six employees might have been discharged in the general reduction of the work force even if the Respondent’s selection of those retained had been on a non-discriminatory basis.”

Commendable as was the Board’s purpose in making it, this reservation as drawn has deprived the order of the finality necessary to support a decree of enforcement upon which contempt proceedings could properly be based. N.L.R.B. v. New York Merchandise Co., 2 Cir., 134 F.2d 949.

In view of the long lapse of time and the admitted change in the conditions and ciicumstances,² it is manifest to us, and we think it will be to the Board, that the six men cannot he reinstated in a plant that has only four employees. Moreover, it is obvious that if — as the Board found might be the case — any of the six employees [950]*950would or might have been discharged in the regular reduction of the work force, even if those selected to be retained had been on a non-discriminatory basis, such employee or employees should not now he ordered reinstated or given back pay.

The order of the Board will be enforced as to all of its provisions, if any, that have not heretofore been complied with, with the exception of paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) relating to reinstatement and back pay. As to these, the matter is returned to the Board for further inquiry and report by thie Board. The petition for enforcement is granted in part, and in part retained for action after further hearings and action by the Board.

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

PER CURIAM.

Four years after the commission of the unfair labor practices; four years after the completion of the war contracts to build small boats and the reduction of employees in the unit from thirty-one to four; two and one-half years after the making of the Board’s order and months after the repeal of the Act under which the proceedings were had, we are asked to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board, as to the finality and appropriateness of a portion of which the Board itself seemed in such doubt that it expressly reserved to itself the right to modify.¹

There is substantial evidence to justify the Board’s finding that the respondent was guilty of unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain collectively with the Union and in his efforts to prevent the employees from joining same, and the cease-and-desist and post-notices portions of the Board’s order were properly entered and should be enforced.

As to paragraphs 2(a) and 2(h), however, the matters they involved must he returned to the Board for further inquiry and report. For the Board, knowing that war contracts wane over, the lush days gone, the employees of respondent drastically reduced in the wake of the receding activity, and that after the passage of the year's the status quo1 of (he parties might not be restored, made no definite and final order as to these. Instead, it reserved to itself without limitations the right to change the reinstatement and back-pay provisions of its orders according to the demand of succeeding circumstances.

We observe that the Board found: (a) that the general reduction of employees was not discriminatorily motivated but that the six employees ordered reinstated were discriminated against, because of thieir Union adherence, in not being selected to be retained as employees, even though the respondent had hired no new men since such reduction; (b) that under the circumstances sufficient positions might not be available for the the six employees affected; (c) that “it is possible that one or more of the ■six employees might have been discharged in the general reduction of the work force even if the Respondent’s selection of those retained had been on a non-discriminatory basis.”

Commendable as was the Board’s purpose in making it, this reservation as drawn has deprived the order of the finality necessary to support a decree of enforcement upon which contempt proceedings could properly be based. N.L.R.B. v. New York Merchandise Co., 2 Cir., 134 F.2d 949.

In view of the long lapse of time and the admitted change in the conditions and ciicumstances,² it is manifest to us, and we think it will be to the Board, that the six men cannot he reinstated in a plant that has only four employees. Moreover, it is obvious that if — as the Board found might be the case — any of the six employees [950]*950would or might have been discharged in the regular reduction of the work force, even if those selected to be retained had been on a non-discriminatory basis, such employee or employees should not now he ordered reinstated or given back pay.

The order of the Board will be enforced as to all of its provisions, if any, that have not heretofore been complied with, with the exception of paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) relating to reinstatement and back pay. As to these, the matter is returned to the Board for further inquiry and report by thie Board. The petition for enforcement is granted in part, and in part retained for action after further hearings and action by the Board.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 F.2d 948, 23 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2386, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-prigg-ca5-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack