HARRY CLARKE, PRESIDENT OF WESTERN CAROLINA INDUSTRIES, INC., AND WESTERN CAROLINA INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the petitioners committed an unfair labor practice by engaging in illegal surveillance and that they were agents of the employer within the meaning of the Act.
Western Carolina Industries and its president, Harry Clarke, were found by the NLRB to have engaged in illegal surveillance of a union meeting as agen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Agency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Western Carolina Industries, Incorporated, an association of industrial employers in western North Carolina, was organized to provide information and advice to its members in the areas of personnel policy, plant safety, and labor relations. The National Labor Relations Board ordered Western Carolina and its president, Harry Clarke, to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices. Western Carolina and Clarke now petition to set aside the order, and the Board cross-petitions for enforcement.
The Board found that the petitioners had committed an unfair labor practice in their capacity as agents for Phillips Industries, Incorporated, a member of the association, by engaging in illegal surveillance of a union meeting during an organizational campaign at the Phillips plant in Arden, North Carolina. In connection with the campaign, petitioner Clarke visited the plant, where he was seen by Phillips employees. A few days after the visit, Clarke was recognized by Phillips employees as he drove slowly around a restaurant in which a union meeting was being held. According to the Board’s finding, Clarke came to the restaurant “for the purpose of engaging in surveillance of the union meeting environs.” Although petitioners challenge this finding on review, we conclude that it is supported by substantial evidence.
The petitioners also contend that the Board erred in finding them to be agents of Phillips within the mean ing of §§ 2(2) and 2(13) of the Act. The Board found, upon substantial evidence, that Clarke, through his involvement in the labor relations affairs of Phillips, had become “inextricably allied with management.” An employer may not take advantage of anti-union activities carried on in its behalf by third parties and then seek to avoid responsibility for those actions by denying the existence of a formal agency relation. The concept of agency is broadly construed under the Act, and the relationship between Clarke and Phillips is well within its scope. See Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. NLRB, 125 U.S.App. D.C. 275, 371 F. 2d 740 (1966); Colson Corp. v. NLRB, 347 F. 2d 128 (8th Cir. 1965).
Nor do we find merit in the other issues raised by the petitioners. The order of the Board is accordingly
Enforced.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGRAW-Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 419 F.2d 67 (8th Cir. 1969)
Authorities Cited
- The Colson Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 347 F.2d 128 (8th Cir. 1965)
- Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Am., Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 371 F.2d 740 (D.C. Cir. 1966)