National Labor Relations Board v. Germain Seed & Plant Co.

On April 5, 1941, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against respondent, Germain Seed & Plant Company, a California corporation. Respondent answered, a hearing was had, and on December 31, 1941, the Board stated its findings, issued an order and caused the order to be served on respondent. The order requires respondent to—

On March 10, 1942, the Board petitioned this Court for enforcement of the order. Respondent has answered, and, by our leave, Consolidated Seedsmen’s Union, Tnc., a labor organization, hereafter called the union, has intervened. Respondent and the union pray that the order be set aside on the ground that the findings are not supported by evidence.

The Board found that respondent had dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the union, had contributed support to it, and thus had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of § 8(2) of the Act, 2 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (2); that, by dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of the union, by contributing support to it, and by other acts described in the findings, respondent had interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the…

(dissenting in part).

In refusing to decree the Board’s order to disestablish the Consolidated Seedsmen’s Union, Inc., as follows:

I dissent from the holding that the National Labor Relations Board is powerless to disestablish a union for which an employer has initiated among its employees the movement for its corporate organization; has furnished the organizing committee which becomes its initial corporate membership and its board of directors; has supplied the lawyer who drafted its corporate documents; has its by-laws so drawn that its directors have the function of collective bargaining for its members; has prepared a membership card creating the board of directors the bargaining agent of its members; lias procured the signatures to the cards of a large portion, if not a majority of its employees; and where the employer continues to exercise its dominion over its corporate creation.

That is to say, an employer may create and dominate a union among its employees, which certainly gravely hampers, if it does not prevent, the organization of the independent type of union for whose protection Congress enacted the National Labor Relations legislation, and yet the Board cannot…

(concurring).

It may be argued with some force that we ought to look through the fact that the Board has ordered respondent to cease and desist from recognizing the Consolidated Seedsmen’s Union as the representative of the respondent’s employees and look through the fact that the respondent has been ordered to withdraw recognition of this union notwithstanding the fact that the directors and not the union were specifically recognized and authorized to act as the employees’ bargaining agent. That after all the directors are the acting agent of the union. But we would be assuming a good deal in doing this. The Board may or máy not have intended its order to be so construed.

When we, upon review, decree that a Board order shall be enforced, we must look forward to the possible necessity for affirmative action -to compel compliance, *100 and we should therefore be careful to order enforced only, orders that will support such action.

If the portion of the Board’s order here ordered enforced does not, in the Board’s judgment, reach far enough, the Board has the power to enter a supplemental order which can easily be drawn to avoid the difficulties pointed out in the main opinion.