National Labor Relations Board v. McClure Associates, Inc., 556 F.2d 725, 4th Cir. (1977)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsNational Labor Relations Board v. McClure Associates, Inc., 556 F.2d 725, 4th Cir. (1977)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs556 F.
2d 725
95 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2801, 81 Lab.Cas. P 13,300,
2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 311
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
McCLURE ASSOCIATES, INC., Respondent.
No. 76-1964.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 5, 1977.
Decided June 13, 1977.
Lynne Deitch, Washington, D.C. (John H. Ferguson, John S. Irving, Jr.,
Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor,
Associate Gen. Counsel and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen.
Counsel, Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner.
J. Roy Weathersby and R. Paul Cannon, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Before BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and CRAVEN* and WIDENER,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In this case we enforce an order which required the Company to cease and
desist from violation of 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and 158(a)(3), and for
reinstatement and back pay.
The Company (an electrical subcontractor) discharged for lack of work twelve
employees, the Company taking the position there was economic justification
for their discharge. Assuming that such economic justification for a reduction in
force did exist, we yet think there was substantial evidence to support the
Board's finding that the eight of them which concern us here were discharged
because of their union activity. Each of the eight, on at least one occasion, had
either been threatened with discharge on account of their union activity or
interrogated with respect to the same or both; the lead foreman, who was one of
the supervisory employees directly involved, did not testify; and the discharges
coincided with a union campaign which was known to the Company. Without
detailing the facts, we think there was substantial evidence to support the
Board's order.
3
The Company objects that the Administrative Law judge improperly refused in
evidence an affidavit obtained by a Board agent in his investigation from one
Winship, project manager of the general contractor, which affidavit would have
tended to prove that the general contractor directed the Company to reduce its
force. The Board on oral argument takes the position that the affidavit,
excluded as hearsay by the Administrative Law judge, was properly so
excluded, because it was unreliable and not subject to cross-examination. We
agree with the Board. Assuming without deciding that the Federal Rules of
Evidence apply to such hearings, the affidavit did not comply with Rule 804(b)
(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, since it was not a deposition taken in
compliance with law in the same or another proceeding; and in addition,
although the affidavit was taken by a board agent, there was no opportunity for
cross-examination. We also think the affidavit was not admissible under Rule
803(24), for we do not think the affidavit had equivalent circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness.
ENFORCEMENT GRANTED.
Judge Craven concurred in this opinion but died before it was filed
