National Labor Relations Board v. Reynolds Corp.

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Reynolds Corp.

168 F.2d 877, 22 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2251, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2982

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 25, 1948

DocketNo. 11422

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 168 F.2d 877 (National Labor Relations Board v. Reynolds Corp.) 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. Reynolds Corp., 168 F.2d 877, 22 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2251, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2982 (5th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The evidence of unfair labor practices, upon which the Board predicates its order to reinstate George Porter, Sidney Gibson, Thomas Paschal, and Ruby Collins with back pay is lacking in that substantiality and probity which the law requires. Not only does the evidence fall short of proving that these employees were discharged for union activity or adherence, but there appears to be an utter lack of coercion or intimidation of any kind or character. On the contrary, the employees were reminded, orally and in writing, from time to time by the management, as well as by some of the same supervisory employees against whom the charges were laid, that anyone who wished could join or not join the Union without risk of losing his or her job.

Furthermore, we cannot see that any good purpose would be served in approving for enforcement, if and when the company ever resumes operations, the other portions of the Board’s order. The plant was a Government owned one, making articles entirely for the Government, and at the end of the hostilities it was turned back to the Government and has not been in operation by the respondent for a number of years. This phase of the case seems to be moot.

We decline to enforce the order.¹

This conclusion renders it unnecessary for us to pass upon the question of jurisdiction.

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

PER CURIAM.

The evidence of unfair labor practices, upon which the Board predicates its order to reinstate George Porter, Sidney Gibson, Thomas Paschal, and Ruby Collins with back pay is lacking in that substantiality and probity which the law requires. Not only does the evidence fall short of proving that these employees were discharged for union activity or adherence, but there appears to be an utter lack of coercion or intimidation of any kind or character. On the contrary, the employees were reminded, orally and in writing, from time to time by the management, as well as by some of the same supervisory employees against whom the charges were laid, that anyone who wished could join or not join the Union without risk of losing his or her job.

Furthermore, we cannot see that any good purpose would be served in approving for enforcement, if and when the company ever resumes operations, the other portions of the Board’s order. The plant was a Government owned one, making articles entirely for the Government, and at the end of the hostilities it was turned back to the Government and has not been in operation by the respondent for a number of years. This phase of the case seems to be moot.

We decline to enforce the order.¹

This conclusion renders it unnecessary for us to pass upon the question of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 F.2d 877, 22 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2251, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-reynolds-corp-ca5-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack