Vanderbilt Products, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
VANDERBILT PRODUCTS, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
When the petitioner’s employees in an appropriate unit of production and maintenance employees and truck drivers by secret election chose the local union here involved as its bargaining representative, petitioner put all authority for the conduct of collective bargaining negotiations in the hands of a newly engaged attorney, unskilled, as he himself conceded, in labor matters. As the trial examiner and the Board found on adequate evidence, the attorney then proceeded to condition all negotiations upon the acceptance of terms which no “self-respecting union” could brook. These proceedings followed, including a hearing for the taking of testimony before a trial examiner, where the attorney, contrary to Canon 19 of the A.B.A. Canons of Professional Ethics, filled the dual role of counsel and witness for his client. The Board on recommendation of the examiner found the petitioner guilty of unfair labor practices and entered a comparatively mild order that it cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the Union. Petitioner seeks review of this order, and the Board asks for its enforcement.
The terms upon which petitioner’s attorney required agreement before further negotiations could be had were a completely open shop, with no union membership, however restricted; no maintenance of membership or checkoff ; absolute employer right to discharge or layoff without restriction or seniority limitation; and a five-year *834 term for the contract. The trial examiner, in finding a refusal to bargain in good faith, quoted this appropriate statement by Chief Judge Magruder in a similar case, N.L.R.B. v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 1 Cir., 205 F.2d 131, 139 , certiorari denied Reed & Prince Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 346 U.S. 887 , 74 S.Ct. 139 , 98 L.Ed. 391 : “It is difficult to believe that the Company with a straight face and in good faith could have supposed that this proposal had the slightest chance of acceptance by a self-respecting union, or even that it might advance the negotiations by affording a basis of discussion; rather, it looks more like a stalling tactic by a party bent upon maintaining the pretense of bargaining.”
The Board’s order should be enforced and a decree to that effect will be entered.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- National Labor Relations Board v. MacMillan Ring-Free Oil Co., Inc.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Blevins Popcorn Company, American Federation of Grain Millers
- National Labor Relations Board v. Patent Trader, Inc.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford, Inc.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Wright Motors, Inc.
- M.R. & R. Trucking Company, Cross v. The National Labor Relations Board
Most recent
- Teamsters Local Union No. 515, Affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board
- National Labor Relations Board v. Blevins Popcorn Company, American Federation of Grain Millers
- National Labor Relations Board v. Wright Motors, Inc.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Holmes Tuttle Broadway Ford, Inc.
- M.R. & R. Trucking Company, Cross v. The National Labor Relations Board
- National Labor Relations Board v. Patent Trader, Inc.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.