Magee Carpet Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 15, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 287 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

MAGEE CARPET CO. 287
based on these charges and they would have been administra-
tively dismissed, and thus could not have formed the basis for
the instant complaint. It is entirely speculative as to whether,
on administrative dismissal of the instant charges, other indi-
vidual charges would have been timely filed. Substantial amounts
of time and funds, both private and public, were expended in the
initial litigation culminating in the dismissal order of July 19,
1951, which, so far as the parties were concerned, laid the case
to rest. The revival of the litigation under the instant complaint
not only reinstituted a course of action which, as the Respondent
points out, might well serve as a source of irritation in the
present conduct of labor- management relations by the parties
thereto, but also has necessitated (and unless now stopped, will
continue to necessitate ) substantial expenditure of private and
public time and funds in coping with the prosecution and/or de-
fense of the complaint allegations. In light of all these circum-
stances, we would not serve the public interest as a whole to now
adjudicate the merits of this 1948 dispute. Accordingly, we find
that further proceedings in this case would not effectuate the
broad purpose and policies of the Act, and we shall therefore
dismiss the complaint without passing upon its merits.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
Member Beeson took no part inthe consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
MAGEE CARPET CO. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 4-CA-178. April 15, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
The above-entitled proceeding stems from changes filed
February 2 and 3, 1949, by the Union named in the caption of
this case, attributing to the Respondent Company the commis-
sion of unfair labor practices in January 1949. A complaint,
charging the Respondent with violations of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3) of the Act, issued August 30, 1949. This complaint
initiated an extensive and time-consuming course of litigation
on the merits, which included a full hearing before Trial
Examiner W. Gerard Ryan, his issuance of an Intermediate
Report on May 11, 1950, the Board's decision of the case on
the basis of the parties' exceptions and briefs, the Board's
issuance of a Decision and Order, on August 31, 1950, and the
completion of the litigation cycle before the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals (hereinafter referred to as the Court), upon
the Board's petition for enforcement of the August 31, 1950,
order.' On May 14, 1951, while this case was pending for
1 In April 1951 the Respondent reinstated 1 of the 2 employees whose prior discharge formed
the basis of: (1) The 8 (a) (3) allegations of the complaint; (2) the Board's finding sustaining
such allegations; and (3) its order directing, among other things, that reinstatement be offered
108 NLRB No. 54
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
decision by the Court, the United States Supreme Court
issued its decision in N. L. R. B. v. Highland Park Manufactur-
ing Co., 341 U. S. 322, holding that the Board had erred, as
a matter of law, in entertaining a complaint based upon charges
filed by a union affiliated with the CIO, where such complaint
had issued (as was true in this case at the time) at a date
prior to the CIO's compliance with the filing requirements of
Section 9 (h) of the Act. In accord with the Supreme Court's
ruling, the Board, on its own motion, took steps to withdraw
the case from the Court. On June 27, 1951, after the Court's
issuance of its opinion in the case sustaining the Board's
decision,' but prior to the Court's issuance of a decree
enforcing the Board's order, the Board moved that the Court
remand the case to it so that, in light of the Supreme Court's
Highland Park decision, the Board could enter an order vacating
the August 31, 1950, Decision and Order, and dismissing the
complaint.' On August 23, 1951, the Court withdrew its June
6, 1951, opinion, and pursuant to the Board's motion, remanded
the case to the Board. On December 20, 1951, the Board
issued its order vacating the August 31, 1950, Decision and
Order and dismissing the complaint on the ground that the
complaint had been invalidly issued.
On April 10, 1952, the General Counsel issued a new com-
plaint based on the February 1949 charges and containing sub-
stantially the same allegations as were contained in the August
1949 complaint. The case was set for hearing before Trial
Examiner Ralph Winkler. The validity of the General Counsel's
action in thus reviving the matter which had been previously
litigated was challenged by the Respondent at the outset of the
hearing and before any evidence was presented , by a motion
that the complaint be dismissed summarily. The grounds the
Respondent asserted in support of this motion were sub-
stantially identical to those asserted by the responaent-em-
ployer in the Shell Chemical Corporation case, in which we
have issued a Decision and Order this day." The Trial Exam-
iner denied the motion, and the Respondent promptly filed an
interlocutory appeal to the Board. As the issues presented on
this appeal were identical to those presented by Shell Chemical
Corporation's appeal, the Board considered the two appeals
contemporaneously, and on July 29, 1952, issued identical orders
here and in the Shell Chemical case, respectively denying each
Employer's appeal and affirming each of the Trial Examiner's
to the 2 employees. On the date of the Respondent's April 1951 attempt to comply with a
portion thereof, 1 of the 2 employees named in the 8 (a) (3) allegations of the complaint was
in military service.
2 This opinion was dated June 6, 1951.
3 The CIO did not comply with the Act's filing requiremel3ts until December 22, 1949.
Pursuant to the Highland Park decision the Board dismissed all cases pending before it in
which complaints had been issued before December 22, 1949, on the basis of the charges
filed by CIO affiliates.
4108 NLRB 284.
GRINNELL PAJAMA CORP. 289
rulings. The decisional basis of the Board's July 29, 1952,
order is described in our decision in the Shell Chemical Corpo-
ration case issued this day, and need not here be repeated.
Thereafter , following the Respondent ' s unsuccessful attempts
to obtain the Court ' s review of the Board ' s interlocutory order
of July 29, 1952, the case was litigated on the merits before
Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler who , on July 13 , 1953, issued
an Intermediate Report disposing of the complaint on the merits.
He found that , as was alleged in the complaint , the Respondent
violated Section 8 ( a) (1) and ( 3) of the statute upon the same acts
which had formed the basis of the initial, abortive proceedings
detailed above.
Thereafter , the .Respondent filed exceptions and a brief in
support thereof dealing with the merits of the case , but also
including, in effect , a renewal of the motion . to dismiss which
was the subject of the Board ' s July 29, 1952 , order.
We have now reexamined , on the basis of the record as a
whole , the question of whether the summary dismissal of the
complaint without regard to the merits is justified as a matter
of policy . Upon the entire record, and in light of the similarity
of the circumstances under which this and the Shell Chemical
Corporation proceeding were placed before us, we are con-
vinced hat substantially the same considerations are here pres-
ent as those motivating our decision in the Shell Chemical
Corporation case to the effect that sound policy reasons exist
for not proceeding further in the kind of unusual situation we
here face . Therefore , we find , as we did in the Shell Chemical
Corporation case, that it will not effectuate the broad purposes
and policies of the Act to proceed further in this case, and we
shall accordingly dismiss the complaint in its entirety, with-
out passing upon its merits.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
GRINNELL PAJAMA CORP. and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-
3519. April 19, 1954.
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before M. Alice
Fountain , hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
108 NLRB No. 60.
339676 0 - 55 - 20