Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 365 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 365 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sign and Pictorial Union Local 1175, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board (cadc, 1969-10-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ca5 1971
5th Cir. · 1971 · confidence medium
Though we have inferred that the institution of the shift change was not motivated by the best of intentions towards the union, but was perhaps intended to alleviate low employee morale feeding an aspect of the seniority issue, this is a far cry from an imputation to the employer of overall subjective bad faith. 9 369 U.S. 736, 742-743 , 82 S.Ct. 1107 , 8 L.Ed.2d 230 (1962) 10 The Board thus seems to contend in its brief that the pre-election campaign letters and the supervisor statements showed that the employer entered the negotiations with less than an open mind and a willingness to reach a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sign and Pictorial Union Local 1175, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 365 F.2d 321, 322 (C.A. 5, 1966).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sign & Pictorial Union Local 1175 v. National Labor Relations Board (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 365 F.2d 321, 322 (C.A. 5, 1966).
discussed Cited "see" Southwestern Pipe, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
5th Cir. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 365 F.2d 321, 322 (5th Cir. 1966). . 351 U.S. 149, 155 , 76 S.Ct. 753, 757 , 100 L.Ed. 1027 (1956) (Frankfurter, J., separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part). . 398 F.2d 47, 51 (5th Cir. 1968). .
cited Cited "see" National Labor Relations Board v. McLane Company, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 5 Cir. (1966), 365 F.2d 321 .
discussed Cited "see" Waycross Sportswear, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Afl-Cio
5th Cir. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See, among the many cases in this expanding area, N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 5 Cir., 1966, 365 F.2d 321, 322-323 ; San Antonio Machine & Supply Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 5 Cir., 1966, 363 F.2d 633, 635, 641 ; N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 5 Cir., 1965, 339 F.2d 829, 830, 832 ; and N.L.R.B. v. Herman Sausage Co., 5 Cir., 1960, 275 F.2d 229 . 9 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Glomac Plastics, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, Afl-Cio, Intervenor
2d Cir. · 1979 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 146 N.L.R.B. 420 , 430 (1964), enf’d, 365 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1966).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." National Labor Relations Board v. A. W. Thompson, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1971 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 5 Cir, 1966, 365 F.2d 321 ; Majure v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir, 1952, 198 F.2d 735 ; N.L.R.B. v. Herman Sausage Co., 5 Cir, 1960, 275 F.2d 229 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Whittier Mills Co, 5 Cir, 1940, 111 F.2d 474 ; Stonewall Cotton Mills v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir, 1942, 129 F.2d 629 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Athens Mfg.
cited Cited "see, e.g." San Antonio MacHine & Supply Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
5th Cir. · 1966 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 5 Cir., 365 F.2d 321 , decided June 27, 1966.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
TEXAS COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, Respondent
21779_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 27, 1966.
365 F.2d 321
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Theodore J. Martineau, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Atty., N. L. R. B., for petitioner., David L. Hooper, Abilene, Tex., Hooper & Perry, Abilene, Tex., for respondent.
Rives, Brown, Moore.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The Board seeks enforcement of its order against the respondent. [1] The Board found that the respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, [2] by failing to bargain in good faith with the Union, and by refusing to meet with it on and after June 24, 1963. Should this Court decide that substantial evidence on the whole record supports the Board’s finding and conclusion as to bad faith bargaining, the respondent concedes the Board’s position as to its further finding that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Thus, decision here turns almost entirely on whether the respondent bargained in good faith with the Union.

Among the Trial Examiner’s findings and conclusions adopted by the Board were the following:

“The obligation to bargain embodied in Section 8(r) of the Act requires the parties inter alia ‘to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement. * * * ’ Although this obligation ‘does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession,’ it does contemplate, as the Board and the courts have uniformly held, a willingness to enter the discussions ‘with an open mind and purpose to reach an agreement consistent with the respective rights of the parties’ (Majure Transport Co. v. N. L. R. B., 198 F.2d 735, 739 (C.A.5). See, also, N. L. R. B. v. Herman Sausage Co. Inc., 275 F.2d 229, 231-232 (C.A.5). And as the Supreme Court has observed, ‘performance of the duty to bargain requires more than a willingness to enter upon a sterile discussion of union-management differences’ (N. L. R. B. v. American National Insurance Co., 343 U.S. 395, 402 [72 S.Ct. 824, 96 L.Ed. 1027]). In essence, then, the ‘ultimate issue whether the Company conducted its bargaining negotiations in good faith involves a finding of motive or state of mind which can only be inferred from circumstantial evidence’ (N. L. R. B. v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 205 F.2d 131, 139-140 (C.A.1), cert. denied 346 U.S. 887 [74 S.Ct. 139, 98 L.Ed. 391]). The resolution of this issue ‘is to be inferred from the totality of the employer’s conduct’ (Id., at p. 134).
“On the basis of all the facts and circumstances and the entire record in this case, I find and conclude that the Company did not bargain in good faith[*323] with the Union, as the Act requires. From the totality of its conduct, I am convinced that the Company went through the motions of negotiation with no sincere desire to reach an agreement.”

Those findings and conclusions are supported by more detailed findings in a 38-page “decision” and are vigorously assailed by the respondent.

The principles of law involved have been discussed in detail in the opinions of this Court cited by the Examiner and are succinctly and correctly stated in the part of the Examiner’s decision which we have quoted. One of the opinions relied on by the Examiner, N. L. R. B. v. Herman Sausage Co., 5 Cir. 1960, 275 F.2d 229, 231, points out that:

“ * * * on review we must enforce the Board’s conclusion of bad faith negotiation if it ‘finds support in the record as a whole * * * “even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.” ’ N. L. R. B. v. Fant Milling Co., 1959, 360 U.S. 301, 309, note 10, 79 S.Ct. 1179, 1184, 3 L.Ed.2d 1243, 1249, enforced on remand, 5 Cir., 1959, 272 F.2d 773.”

See also Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 1951, 340 U.S. 474, 488, 71 S.Ct. 456, 465, 95 L.Ed. 456; Oil City Brass Works v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir. 1966, 357 F.2d 466, 469-470; cf. National Labor Relations Board v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 5 Cir., 1966, 363 F.2d 130 (decided June 22, 1966).

With those principles in mind, we have carefully read and studied the record and the joint appendix and find that substantial evidence on the whole record supports the Board’s findings and conclusions. Its order is therefore enforced.

1

. The Board’s decision and order are reported at 146 N.L.R.B. No. 58. In part, the Board’s order requires that the respondent

“Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 826, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.”
2

. 61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.