Exide Alkaline Battery Div. of Esb, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 423 F.2d 663 (4th Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
Exide Alkaline Battery Div. of Esb, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 423 F.2d 663 (4th Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Florida Steel Corporation, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross (ca5, 1976-04-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Florida Steel Corporation, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross
5th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Exide Alkaline Battery Division of ESB, Inc. v. NLRB, 423 F.2d 663 (4th Cir. 1970), holding unlawful a proscription against soliciting during 'working hours.' 22 The average Florida Steel employee--through whose eyes the validity of the no-solicitation rule is measured, Fasco Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 412 F.2d 589 (4th Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Lexington Chair Co., 361 F.2d 283 (4th Cir. 1966)--could easily interpret a prohibition of solicitation 'on the company's time' as barring solicitation during the entire time the employee was 'clocked in', including such non-working times as rest per…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Florida Steel Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
5th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Exide Alkaline Battery Division of ESB, Inc. v. NLRB, 423 F.2d 663 (4th Cir. 1970), holding unlawful a proscription against soliciting during “working hours.” The average Florida Steel employee — through whose eyes the validity of the no-solicitation rule is measured, Fasco Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 412 F.2d 589 (4th Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Lexington Chair Co., 361 F.2d 283 (4th Cir. 1966)— could easily interpret a prohibition of solicitation “on the company’s time” as barring solicitation during the entire time the employee was “clocked in”, including such non-working t…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
EXIDE ALKALINE BATTERY DIVISION OF ESB, INC., Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
13721_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Mar 26, 1970.
423 F.2d 663
1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10115
Homer L. Deakins, Jr., Greenville, S. C. (Thompson, Ogletree & Haynsworth, Greenville, S. C., on brief), for petitioner., Douglas L. Leslie, Atty., National Labor Relations Board (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Paul J. Spielberg, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, on brief), for respondent.
Sobeloff, Bryan, Craven.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The Board’s order is before us on the Company’s petition for review and the Board’s cross-application for enforcement. We enforce the order in all respects.

The Board found that the Company interrogated and threatened employees and created an impression of surveillance in violation of section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. At the outset of the Union’s organizational campaign the Company posted a letter which said, in part:

This Company does not want a union in this plant. We don’t think any outsiders, such as a union organizer from Georgia, have anything worthwhile or constructive to offer. The only things the union sells are confusion, turmoil and trouble- — and they charge a price for it. This is why the Company, will resist the union with every legal means available. (Emphasis in original.)

This document set the tone for the ensuing events which portray a pattern of coercive tactics on the part of the Company and amply support the section 8(a) (1) findings.

Secondly, the Board found that the Company violated sections 8(a) (3) and 8(a) (1) by discharging five employees for their union activity. All five were accused of transgressing a working time no-solicitation rule. However, the Board's finding, that the no-solicitation rule was resorted to as a pretext, is supported by the evidence as a whole. It is worthy of particular note that one of the aggrieved employees, Richardson, was fired for an alleged solicitation while he and another employee were waiting at the time clock to punch out for the day.

Finally, the Board held that the no-solicitation rules maintained by the Company were unlawfully broád in violation of section 8(a) (1). The rule, posted January 3, 1967 prohibited solicitation during “working time”; the April 24, 1968 rule inadvertently changed the phrase to “working hours.” The Board contends that both of these phrases were ambiguous and could have been construed to cover the entire working day, including break time. We agree that after Richardson’s discharge a prudent employee would have concluded that the Company was using an expansive interpretation. Therefore the Board was not unwarranted in concluding that the rules were illegally repressive.

The Board’s order will be

Enforced.