National Labor Relations Board v. William S. Shurett, Doing Business as Greyhound Terminal

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. William S. Shurett, Doing Business as Greyhound Terminal

314 F.2d 43, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2335, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6289

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 30, 1963

Docket19784_1

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 314 F.2d 43 (National Labor Relations Board v. William S. Shurett, Doing Business as Greyhound Terminal) 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. William S. Shurett, Doing Business as Greyhound Terminal, 314 F.2d 43, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2335, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6289 (5th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record before us adequately supports the findings of which Respondent complains, that jurisdiction of the Board was properly asserted; that Respondent refused to bargain with the Union and thereby violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act; and that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by offering inducement and by making a threat of reprisal in an effort to have a strike abandoned. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1) and (5).

While we do not condone a practice of a Union striking and picketing an employer within two days after demanding recognition, it nevertheless appears in this ease that General Counsel carried the burden of proving that the refusal to recognize the Union as the bargaining agent was not in the requisite good faith. Smith Transfer Co. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 738; N. L. R. B. v. Stewart, 5 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 8; N. L. R. B. v. Poultry Enterprises, Inc., 5 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 522; and N. L. R. B. v. Southeastern Rubber Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 11.

We are aware of and have recognized the dilemma in which an employer finds himself when an Union demands certification prior to an election. See N. L. R. B. v. Dan River Mills, Incorporated, 5 Cir., 1960, 274 F.2d 381. But the small employer here could have hardly been in doubt after a majority of his employees took to the picket line, and after he was fully advised as to the law. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. American Aggregate Co., 5 Cir., 1962, 305 F.2d 559; Scobell Chemical Co. v. N. L. R. B., 2 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 922; N. L. R. B. v. Barney’s Supercenter, Inc., 3 Cir., 1961, 296 F.2d 91; and N. L. R. B. v. Harris-Woodson Co., 4 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 720.

The order therefore must be and is enforced.

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

PER CURIAM.

The record before us adequately supports the findings of which Respondent complains, that jurisdiction of the Board was properly asserted; that Respondent refused to bargain with the Union and thereby violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act; and that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by offering inducement and by making a threat of reprisal in an effort to have a strike abandoned. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1) and (5).

While we do not condone a practice of a Union striking and picketing an employer within two days after demanding recognition, it nevertheless appears in this ease that General Counsel carried the burden of proving that the refusal to recognize the Union as the bargaining agent was not in the requisite good faith. Smith Transfer Co. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 738; N. L. R. B. v. Stewart, 5 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 8; N. L. R. B. v. Poultry Enterprises, Inc., 5 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 522; and N. L. R. B. v. Southeastern Rubber Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 11.

We are aware of and have recognized the dilemma in which an employer finds himself when an Union demands certification prior to an election. See N. L. R. B. v. Dan River Mills, Incorporated, 5 Cir., 1960, 274 F.2d 381. But the small employer here could have hardly been in doubt after a majority of his employees took to the picket line, and after he was fully advised as to the law. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. American Aggregate Co., 5 Cir., 1962, 305 F.2d 559; Scobell Chemical Co. v. N. L. R. B., 2 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 922; N. L. R. B. v. Barney’s Supercenter, Inc., 3 Cir., 1961, 296 F.2d 91; and N. L. R. B. v. Harris-Woodson Co., 4 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 720.

The order therefore must be and is enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 F.2d 43, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2335, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-william-s-shurett-doing-business-as-ca5-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack