Court Opinion

ID: 9455587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:26:18.876111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:38.866786
License: Public Domain

HASTINGS,
Senior Circuit Judge dissenting.
On this review we are first' asked to consider whether there is substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole to support the Labor Board’s finding and holding that the employer, Borek Motor Sales, Inc.,1 violated Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act2 by threatening its automobile salesman, Ralph E. Teeter, with discharge if he signed a union card, and that Borek violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act3 by discharging Teeter for joining and supporting the union.
With deference to the majority, as I read and understand the record before us, I do not find substantial evidence to support the Board’s challenged findings and would deny enforcement of its resulting order.
In the first half of 1967, Borek’s sales organization was critically depleted. Faren, a new car salesman, died first. Bonn, the used car manager, died next. Verdett, the general sales manager, was the third one to die. Farino, another salesman of 14 years’ experience, was *683promoted to general sales manager following Verdett’s death. White, another long time experienced salesman, quit his job because he was not promoted to general sales manager instead of Farino. About seven salesmen were a normal complement.
Borek and his manager, Farino, became quite concerned and made a desperate effort to recruit experienced salesmen. Teeter came to their attention through Donohue, another salesman. Teeter was an experienced salesman with a good record. Borek employed him. He started to work on September 18, 1967. His sales performance did not meet Borek’s expectations and Borek began insisting to Farino, during November and December, that Teeter be discharged. However, Farino wanted to give Teeter further opportunity to make good. Finally, Teeter became ill and was hospitalized in late December. Farino persuaded Borek to defer the discharge until Teeter had another week to try again after his return. Finally, Farino called Teeter into a private conference on the evening of January 8, 1968. After reviewing in detail Teeter’s unsatisfactory work and sales performance, Farino discharged him. No reference was made at that time to any labor organization. Borek was not present during this final interview but as early as the middle of November, 1967 had been suggesting that this step should be taken. It was Borek, not Farino, who had insisted upon the discharge.
The Board overruled the Examiner and found that Mr. Borek had no anti-union animus. I cannot believe that Farino’s isolated statement made on the first day of the union organizational campaign, and the attendant impulsive incidents, before any salesman had signed a union card, is entitled to the controlling effect accorded to it by the Board. A week later, Borek in effect purged this alleged statement of any adverse effect in his breakfast meeting with the salesmen. Later all salesmen signed union cards. No one else was discharged. Apparently there were only five salesmen in the entire group.
I have carefully reviewed the entire record pertaining to the Teeter discharge. I am compelled to conclude that the discharge was for valid, well supported economic reasons.4
I have further concluded, on considering the record as a whole, that the Board’s findings that the employer Borek threatened Teeter with discharge and later discharged him for protected union activities in violation of Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) of the Labor Act, are not supported by substantial evidence. On this basis, I would deny enforcement of the Board’s order.
I do not reach the alleged antitrust violation in this case. I have separately stated my views thereon in my dissent to the companion case of Schmerler Ford, Inc. et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, 424 F.2d 1335 (1970), consolidated for hearing with the instant case.

. Ted A. Borek was president of Borek Motor Sales, Inc., and reference is made herein to each as Borek.

. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1).

. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (3).

. The majority opinion notes Teeter’s testimony, together with a December, 1967 statistic, indicating Teeter’s favorable sales record. A countervailing summary could be shown from the record. In any event, the employer was not satisfied and exercised a legitimate prerogative of management.