Court Opinion

ID: 9650373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:33:44.608308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:20.854688
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
On June 11, 1937, the Flour Mill and Cereal Workers Union No. 20601 1 filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board’s Regional Office at Kansas City, Missouri, alleging that the Moore-Lowry Flour Mills Company2 was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of § 8 (2) of the Act. E. F. Merrill, general manager of the Flour Company, was requested to come to the office of George O. Pratt, Director of the Seventeenth Region, National Labor Relations Board, and dis*427cuss the labor situation at Coffeyville. At a conference with Pratt it was agreed that Foster, a representative of the Board, Merrill, and Foulston, attorney for the Flour Company, would meet at Coffeyville. Two conferences were held at Coffeyville on June 15 and 16, 1937. At the first conference, Foster represented the Board, Fouls-ton the Flour Company, and Maiden3 and Beam the Union. Foster stated the local organization was improper because two supervisory employees were acting as officers and because of the activity of Hood, the Flour Company’s mill superintendent. It was agreed that the Flour Company would not recognize the local organization, that it would be disbanded, and that notice to that effect would be given by the Flour Company. At the second conference, Foster represented the Board, Merrill and Foulston the Flour Company, and Hurt, Ellis, and Reidy, employees of the Flour Company, represented the employees. Foulston and Foster told the employees’ representatives that their association was not properly organized and would not be recognized. Foster told them their organization should have by-laws and provide for dues; advised them they had a right to organize if it was properly done; stated he thought it best for them to disband and try again; that they could confer with the Regional Office at Kansas City, if they wished, as to how to properly perfect their organization; that he could see no objection to their holding meetings on the Flour Company’s property if the Flour Company did not object; and suggested they employ an attorney to help them. Shortly thereafter, a meeting was held at the Regional Office of the Board at Kansas City at which Pratt, Regional Director, Maiden, representing the Union, and Foulston, representing the Flour Company, were present. A notice was formulated and agreed to. It is set out in the margin.4 It was posted on the Flour Company’s bulletin board on June 21, 1937, and thereupon the charges *428were withdrawn. At the conference, Pratt stated he saw no obj ection to letting groups meet peaceably on the Flour Company’s property.
The executive committee of the original organization, Hurt, Ellis, and Reidy, consulted Welch, an attorney at Coffeyville, with a view to setting up a properly formed local organization. Hurt, a former school teacher, employed by the Flour Company as a laborer in the sack room and as a night watchman on Sundays and holidays and occasionally on nights when the regular watchmen were off, was the leader in the formation of both local organizations. Before consulting Welch, Hurt made inquiry of the employees as to whether they should make a second effort to effect a local organization and having received affirmative answers, posted a notice for a meeting to be held on July 13. The meeting was held in the Flour Company’s garage on company property. About 35 of the 40 employees attended. Hurt opened the meeting by announcing that it was necessary to disband the old organization because of the fact the supervisory employees had been elected as officers. The by-laws which had been prepared by Welch were read. Lander, secretary of the Union, also read a portion of the National Labor Relations Act to the employees. Thirty-one employees signed the by-laws at the meeting and four signed them later. The name adopted by the new organization was Moore-Lowry Flour Mills Employees Association.5 Hurt was elected president, Chester Doss, secretary, and Will Akers, treasurer. Two candidates were nominated for secretary and treasurer, and the successful candidates were elected by secret ballot. Welch notified Merrill and Foulston that the Association had been organized and requested a ■conference for the purpose of negotiating -a working agreement. Thereupon, Fouls-ton wrote Pratt that the new organization had requested a contract covering wages and hours of employment for the ensuing year, enclosed a copy of the by-laws of the ■new organization, and inquired whether the Board desired to hold a secret election. Pratt did not reply to the letter. Ten days 'later, representatives of the Association and the Flour Company met and discussed the contract. There were some points of difference, including the amount of increase in wages. An agreement was reached subject to approval by the members of the Association. It was submitted to the membership of the Association at a meeting held in the company garage on July 24. It was approved by the Association and was thereupon executed.
The meetings of July 13 and July 24 were held during working hours on company property.
When Lander reported for work on the morning of July 13, Hood stated to him, “You had better get yourself over to that meeting.” Lander replied that he might get “bawled out” if he took the time out. Hood replied, “No, you won’t get bawled out; you attend the meeting and they will treat you right.” As the employees were proceeding to the meeting place,'Hood said, “All you guys get over to that meeting; I can run this mill by myself.” Cox, a foreman, told other employees when they reported for work that there would not be any work until after the meeting was completed. Hood told Ray, an employee who was active in the Union and the father of its president, that he “had better go on over to that meeting.” When Ray demurred on the ground he was not a member of the Association, Hood told him to “sit here on the dock until the meeting is over with.” At the same time Hood told Lander that he “might just as well go out there and sit down with Nick [Raj] until the boys get back.” The employees were docked for the time spent at the Association meetings held during working hours.
While the meetings were held on company property, that action was sanctioned by Foster, representative of the Board. This constituted at most a trivial contribution by the Flour Company.
The employees were free to adopt any form of organization and representation, whether purely local or connected with a national body. A local labor organization may be the product of the right of the employees to self-organization and to collective bargaining “through representatives of their own choosing” guaranteed by § 7 of the Act.6 They had the right.to form such local organization immediately after the disestablishment of the original local organization.7 When the first organization *429was disbanded and the notice posted, the slate was wiped clean. See National Labor Board v. Newport News Co., 308 U.S. 241, 250, 60 S.Ct. 203, 84 L.Ed. 219.
Thirty-eight of the employees testified that they voluntarily organized the Association and that they were not influenced in joining it by any action of the Flour Company. There was no evidence that Hurt, who was the moving spirit in the organization of the Association, was in anywise influenced by the Flour Company, and he testified he acted voluntarily and without suggestion from the management of the Flour Company. I think there was no substantial evidence that the Flour Company interfered with the organization of the Association.8 The only thing of moment that occurred was the statement by Hood when the men were proceeding to the meeting of July 13, “All you guys get over to that meeting.” It is obvious that the statements of Hood to Lander and Ray, who were members of the Union and who never joined the Association, were innocuous and of no effect.
What was said by the court in Humble Oil & Refg. Co. v. Labor Board, 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 85, 92, is apposite:
“It would be strange indeed if a labor organization, freely organized by a large majority of the employees, is to be destroyed whenever some well-wishing supervisor, contrary to his own duty and orders, says something in its favor. As we see it, the employees who freely formed these organizations have the right under the law to have them function. If the employer trespasses through his representatives, he and they ought to be stopped, but a more serious and demoralizing trespass than here appears is necessary to show such domination or interference or support as will justify annihilation of such organizations.”
Neither do I think the fact that Reidy and Ellis, second millers, accompanied Hurt when he consulted Welch respecting the formation of the Association and employment of him to draft the by-laws is of material importance. Neither had authority to hire or discharge. While they were in physical charge of the mill at times, adjusted machinery and made repairs, they were at all times under the general direction and supervision of the superintendent and foremen and carried out only routine work. Such being their status, they were eligible to membership in the local organization.9
I think the evidence clearly established that the employees wanted their own local organization and that when they found the first organization was defective, acting under the advice of Foster, representative of the Board, they undertook to form a local organization which would comply with the requirements of the Act.
The Board severely condemned a provision of the contract limiting the Association’s bargaining committee to employees of the Flour Company. It was in the draft of the contract prepared by Welch. The employees had the right to select any bargaining agent they chose. That is one of the rights guaranteed under the Act. They had the right to eliminate from the bargaining committee any person who was not a fellow employee. I see no basis for the condemnation.
■ It is my conclusion that those parts of the order directing the disestablishment of the Association and the withdrawal of recognition of the Association as the bargaining agent of the employees and directing the Flour Company not to give effect to the contract should not be enforced.
PER CURIAM.
A majority of the court is of the opinion that neither the order of the National Labor Relations Board nor the decree should be modified.
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge,
is of the opinion Jhat subdivision 2(f) of the decree should be modified by inserting after the words “American Federation of Labor,” the following “or any other proper labor organization.”
The application is denied.

 Hereinafter called the Union.

 Hereinafter called the Flour Company.

 Maiden was an organizer for the American Federation of Labor and secretary of the Kansas State Federation of Labor.

 To all Employees:
This notice is posted in order that the employees of the company may be familiarized with the attitude of the company respecting the matters herein stated.
1— The Company recognizes the right of its employees to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
2— Under the Wagner Labor Act the Company is prohibited from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the rights above recited. The Company is prohibited from dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of any labor organization, from contributing financial or other support to it.
3— The Company intends to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law.
4— The Company has been advised that an employees’ association has been formed and has requested that the Company treat with it. Subsequent to this request charges were filed claiming that'this organization does not meet the requirements of the Wagner Labor Act and a conference has been had with the representatives of the Director of the National Labor Relations Board.
5— Because of this charge it is deemed inadvisable for the Company to aeknowl-edge the present organization of its employees as a proper bargaining agency.
6— The Company has been assured by the representative of the Director of National Labor Relations Board that if properly requested by the employees, an impartial election will be had under the supervision of a representative of that Board and the employees of this company by means of a secret ballot will be permitted to determine what agency, if any, shall be entitled to act as the bargaining representative of the employees.
7— If such election is requested any organization of employees properly formed as the requirements of the Wagner Labor Act, will have the right to be represented on the ballot for the purpose of determining the sole bargaining agency for the employees.
8— It is improper for the company to do anything which will interfere with the freedom of choice by the employees. Superintendents and other representatives of the Company not entitled to membership in the bargaining agency are prohibited from doing anything to affect or influence the action of the employees.
9— Employees are requested to refrain during working hours from discussion of these matters.
10— The Company has been assured by the Director of the National Labor Relations Board that any employee or group-of employees may avail themselves of the-advice of said department concerning any questions which may arise in connection, with the matters herein referred to.

 Hereinafter called the Association.

 National Labor Board v. Newport News Co., 308 U.S. 241, 250, 60 S.Ct. 203, 84 L.Ed. 219; National Labor Board v. Link-Belt Company, 311 U.S. 584, 587, 61 S.Ct. 358, 85 L.Ed. 368.

 Humble Oil & Refg. Co. v. Labor Board, 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 85, 88; National *429Labor Board v. Brown Paper Mill Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 867, 871; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Labor Board, 5 Cir., 112 F.2d 545, 552.

 See Cupples Co. Manufacturers v. Labor Board, 8 Cir., 106 F.2d 100, 114; Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co. v. Labor Board, 2 Cir., 98 F.2d 758, 760, 761; L. Greif & Bro. v. Labor Board, 4 Cir., 108 F.2d 551, 557, 558.

 See In the Matter of Kansas Milling Company and Flour, Feed, Seed, Cereal & Elevator Workers Union, No. 20991, A. F. of L., No. R 1439, Labor Board Dec., decided September 2, 1939; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Labor Board, 5 Cir., 112 F.2d 545, 552.