Wonder State Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 331 F.2d 737 (6th Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Wonder State Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 331 F.2d 737 (6th Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Amptech, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (ca6, 2006-02-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Amptech, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
6th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
Col. v. NLRB, 331 F.2d 737, 738 (6th Cir.1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. Armcor Industries, Inc. (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
See N.L.R.B. v. Dorn's Transportation Company, 405 F.2d 706, 713 (2d Cir. 1969); Steves Sash & Door Company v. N.L.R.B., 401 F.2d 676, 681 (5th Cir. 1968); N.L.R.B. v. Ambrose Distributing Co., 358 F.2d 319, 321 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 838 , 87 S.Ct. 86 , 17 L.Ed.2d 72 (1966); Wonder State Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B., 331 F.2d 737, 738 (6th Cir. 1964); N.L.R.B. v. Williams, 195 F.2d 669, 672 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 834 , 73 S.Ct. 42 , 97 L.Ed. 649 (1952). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allied Industrial Workers, Afl-Cio Local Union No. 289 v. National Labor Relations Board, Cavalier Division of Seeburg Corporation and Cavalier Corporation, Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board v. Cavalier Division of Seeburg Corporation and Cavalier Corporation, Cavalier Division of Seeburg Corporation and Cavalier Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
D.C. Cir. · 1973 · confidence medium
Not only was that situation dissimilar from the present one in several respects, but we also feel it is of little value since the terms of the 1966 contract are clear and unequivocal in this respect and since we do not consider one dissimilar situation occurring seven years prior to this dispute to establish "past practice." The further argument that the Union somehow acquiesced in this interpretation prospectively by failing to bring an unfair labor practice charge in 1962 is devoid of any merit 16 See also Wonder State Manufacturing Co. v. NLRB, 331 F.2d 737, 738 (6th Cir. 1964); Majestic Mo…
cited Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. Dorn's Transportation Company, Inc.
2d Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
Co. v. NLRB, 331 F.2d 737, 738 (6 Cir. 1964). 4 II.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Champion Papers, Inc. (Ohio Division) v. National Labor Relations Board
6th Cir. · 1968 · confidence medium
Co. v. NLRB, 331 F.2d 737, 738 (6th Cir. 1964); NLRB v. Putnam Tool Co., 290 F.2d 663, 665 (6th Cir. 1961); Hartsell Mills Co. v. NLRB, 111 F.2d 291, 292-293 (4th Cir. 1940).
cited Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. The Richard W. Kaase Company and Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union, Local 19
6th Cir. · 1965 · confidence medium
Co. v. NLRB, 331 F.2d 737, 738 (CA6, 1964).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Allied Industrial Workers v. National Labor Relations Board
D.C. Cir. · 1973 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Wonder State Manufacturing Co. v. NLRB, 331 F.2d 737, 738 (6th Cir. 1964) ; Majestic Molded Products, Inc. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 603 , 606 (2d Cir. 1964) ; NLRB v. Frick Co., 397 F.2d 956 , 962-963 (3d Cir. 1968) ; and Texaco, Inc., 179 N.L.R.B. 989 , 993 (1969).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
15390.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Apr 2, 1964.
331 F.2d 737
1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5847
V. Lee McMahon, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. McMahon & Zempel, St. Louis, Mo., of counsel., Jules H. Gordon, Washington, D. C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Phillips, Edwards, McAllister.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

This case is before the Court upon the petition of Wonder State Manufacturing Company (hereinafter the Company) to review and set aside a portion of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has filed a cross petition for enforcement. The decision and order of the Board are reported at 141 N.L.R.B. No. 111, p. 1217.

The Company is an Arkansas corporation engaged in the manufacturing of cotton gin equipment and supplies. It also does business in Tennessee and Kentucky.

The Board found that the Company violated § 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), by interrogating employees concerning their union activity, by threatening employees with loss of work and with closing the plant in the event of union organization, and by leading employees to believe that the Company had their union activities under surveillance. The Board also found that the Company violated § 8(a) (3), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (3), by discriminatorily discharging employees Felty and Straub. The Board issued a cease and desist order and required the Company to offer reinstatement to Felty and Straub with back pay plus interest.

[*738] The Company here contests only that portion of the Board’s decision dealing with the discharge of Straub and seeks to set aside that part of the order requiring reinstatement of this employee with back pay plus interest.

Employees Felty and Straub worked together in the Company’s shipping department. Felty was the primary instigator of the union movement and the Company had knowledge of his activities. Felty held a union meeting at his house and Straub was among the employees who attended. Two days later both Felty and Straub were discharged, the asserted reason being the continued carelessness of the two employees in allowing some shipments to be sent out minus certain parts.

Apparently some incomplete shipments had gone out, but there was conflicting evidence as to whether Felty and Straub were responsible for these mistakes. The Board found that the alleged negligence was a pretext on the part of the Company and that Felty was discharged because of his union activities, a holding which is not challenged in this Court. As for Straub the Board found that his union activities were minimal but concluded that since Straub and Felty were so closely associated in their work in the shipping department, Straub was discharged in order to lend credence to the contention that Felty was being discharged for cause. The Company argues that this theory disregards Straub’s carelessness and is based on mere suspicion.

As for Straub’s alleged negligence, it goes without saying that the Act is violated if discrimination is the real motive for a discharge, and it is no defense that at the same time there was a justifiable ground for discharge. N. L. R. B. v. Bendix Corp., 299 F.2d 308 (C.A.6), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 827, 83 S.Ct 47, 9 L.Ed.2d 65; N. L. R. B. v. Solo Cup Co., 237 F.2d 521 (C.A.8) ; N. L. R. B. v. Electric City Dyeing Co., 178 F.2d 980 (C.A.3).

There was no direct testimony to the effect that the Company discharged Straub to lend credence to its discharge of Felty. To reach this conclusion the Board drew an inference from the facts. This Court has held repeatedly that reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are matters for determination by the Board. N. L. R. B. v. Bendix Corp., supra, 299 F.2d at 310; Old King Cole, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 250 F.2d 791 (C.A.6). We find that there is substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole to support the Board’s inference that Straub was discharged for the purpose of attempting to justify the discharge of Felty. N. L. R. B. v. Williams, 195 F.2d 669, 672 (C.A.4), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 834, 73 S.Ct. 42, 97 L.Ed. 649.

The granting of interest on the back pay award is allowed for the reasons set out in our opinion in Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 331 F.2d 720 (C.A.6).

The petition to set aside a portion of the Board’s order is denied, and enforcement of the order is granted