National Labor Relations Board v. Triumph Curing Center and M. F. Lee D/B/A Lee's Sewing Company, Inc.

571 F.2d 462 98 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2047 , 83 Lab.Cas. P 10,456 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. TRIUMPH CURING CENTER and M. F. Lee d/b/a Lee's Sewing Company, Inc., Respondents. No. 76-2884. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 2, 1978. Mary K. Schuette (argued), Washington, D. C., for petitioner. J. Mark Montobbio (argued), of Severson, Werson, Berke & Melchior, San Francisco, Cal., for respondents. 1 Application For Enforcement Of An Order Of The National Labor Relations Board. 2 Before BROWNING and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge. JAMESON, District Judge: 3 This case is before the court upon the petition of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e), for enforcement of its order issued on January 29, 1976, against respondents Triumph Curing Center, Inc. (Triumph) and M. R. Lee, doing business as Lee's Sewing Company (Lee). The Board found that the respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act and ordered the companies to recognize and bargain…

This case is before the court upon the petition of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e), for enforcement of its order issued on January 29, 1976, against respondents Triumph Curing Center, Inc. (Triumph) and M. R. Lee, doing business as Lee’s Sewing Company (Lee). The Board found that the respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act and ordered the companies to recognize and bargain with the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (Union) as the authorized representative of the pressing employees working at Lee’s plant at 1875 Mission Street, San Francisco. 1 The Board’s decision and order is reported at 222 NLRB No. 103 .

In its decision and order the Board adopted the findings, conclusions and recommended order of the administrative law judge who presided over a fourteen day hearing held during March and April, 1975. The judge had concluded, inter alia, that (1) Triumph and Lee were an integrated enterprise and joint employer; (2) respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting…

concurring and dissenting:

I concur with the majority opinion, except in the enforcement of the bargaining order. I would remand that issue to the Board for the purpose of making findings of fact on the charges of serious violence by the union during the strike, and on whether, if such violence was found to have occurred, it had any coercive effect upon the employees in the exercise of their free choice. Thereafter, the Board should reconsider its bargaining order in the light of the analysis of the effect of union violence on the propriety of a bargaining order developed in Laura Modes Co. (1963) 144 N.L.R.B. 1592 , and N. L. R. B. v. United Mineral & Chemical Corp. (2d Cir. 1968) 391 F.2d 829, 838-41 .

Neither the administrative law judge nor the Board gave more than casual attention to respondents’ charges that the union had committed a series of grave offenses early in the strike. Those charges included attempted arson on the Triumph plant, assault and battery on non-striking employees and supervisors, attempted assault on one of the respondents, breaking and entering, destruction of respondents’ property, threats to kill, threats to throw acid in the face of the wife of one…