Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/253/371/145445/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:52:23+00:00

Document:
Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Stephen Leonard, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, George L. Powell, Arnold Ordman, Maurice Alexandre, Attys., NLRB, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Richard R. Morris, Green, Richardson, Green & Griswold, Portland, Or., for respondent.
The National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to its power under § 10(e)1 of the Labor Relations Act of 1947, petitions this Court for enforcement of its order directing respondent Giustina Bros. Lumber Co. to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices and to reinstate and provide back pay to former employees discriminated against by virtue of said unfair labor practices.
Respondent argues that the entire order should be set aside rather than ordered enforced for the reasons, first, that the facts as found by the Board2 are not supported by substantial evidence; second, that the Board improperly concluded that respondent had waived a defense based on § 8(d)3 of the Act.
On July 28, 1954, the Union held a meeting at which time the question of direct bargaining with respondent was discussed but no action taken. After this meeting a group of approximately twenty striking employees adjourned to the premises of the company where they "found" the machine shop open and benches arranged for a meeting. There is evidence that some strikers referred to the meeting as "secret" and that certain workers were referred to as "uninvited." Respondent's president, Nat Giustina, and labor relations director, Sam Hughes, were "invited" to address the meeting. Evidence of whether the latter were called by phone or were already on the premises is conflicting, but undecisive. It is reasonably clear that there was no appreciable time lag between the "invitation" extended the employers and appearance at the machine shop. Hughes, in effect, took over and conducted this meeting, the essence of which was a "back to work" movement. Limited operations of respondent's plant were resumed the next day.
It is unnecessary to chronicle in detail the circumstances thoroughly considered by the trial examiner. Various reasonable and justifiable inferences might be drawn from the events recounted in the evidence, taken singly or in toto. Suffice to say that there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that, "Implicit in the entire situation * * * was a direct appeal to the employees for the abandonment of their participation in strike action and concerted activity * * * `We believe that such conduct by the respondent is tantamount to dealing directly with the employees on the issue of wages, in derogation of the exclusive status of the duly designated bargaining representative.'"11 The trial examiner further concluded that respondent's letter of August 5, 1954,12 to all employees still on strike, in light of respondent's participation in the back to work meeting, necessarily involved more than a mere statement of intent to lawfully replace economic strikers — it was, essentially, a further solicitation to abandon the strike, coupled with an implicit threat to the employment status of those who ignored its appeal. Once the premise is established, this conclusion is nearly inevitable.
Returning to consideration of the limited scope of our power to review, we conclude that the findings of fact by the trial examiner, as adopted by the Board, are supported by substantial evidence upon the record considered as a whole.
Turning now to respondent's contention that the Union, by striking, allegedly violated § 8(d) of the Act of 1947, we agree with the majority17 of the Board that this contention was abandoned before the Board. We are therefore precluded by § 10(e) from considering this objection to the order.18 The rules of the Board, 29 C.F.R. § 102.46(b), state: "No matter not included in a statement of exceptions may thereafter be urged before the Board, or in any further proceeding." Assuming respondent by exceptions attempted to raise the question of the Union's violation of § 8 (d), those exceptions are so ambiguous as to be totally ineffective to adequately apprise the Board of respondent's intention to assert and rely on the alleged § 8(d) violation. Such ambiguity is the substantial equivalent of no exception at all and is insufficient notice that respondent intends to urge the issue now asserted. N. L. R. B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 1953, 344 U.S. 344, 73 S. Ct. 287, 97 L. Ed. 377; N. L. R. B. v. Essex Wire Corp., 9 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 589. Respondent's motion for reconsideration, filed after the decision of the Board and its accompanying dissent, clearly raised for the first time the § 8(d) defense. In light of the prior abandonment, the Board properly rejected the motion as failing to raise any new matter.
The petition to enforce the order of the Board against respondent Giustina Bros. Lumber Co. is granted.
The letter read: "Operations at our plant in Eugene were resumed July 29, 1954. Some of you have not returned to work. We plan to continue our Eugene operations. If you have not returned to work by Monday, August 9, 1954 to start the regular day shift, it will be considered that you have severed your employment and we will look to others to fill the jobs."
"* * * No objection that has not been urged before the Board, its member, agent, or agency, shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances. * * *"
In view of our agreement with the board's conclusions, it becomes unnecessary to determine whether respondent properly raised and preserved a § 8(d) issue in the earlier proceedings.

References: § 10
 § 8
 § 8
 § 10
 § 102
 § 8
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 § 8