NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
HARDY-HERPOLSHEIMER DIVISION OF ALLIED STORES OF MICH., INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS, AND RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 20, RCIA, AFL-CIO, INTERVENING PETITIONER
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 enforced the Board's bargaining order, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's resolution of ballot challenges.
The employer challenged a bargaining order, arguing a representation election was invalid due to the Board's resolution of ballot challenges. The Boar…
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 Bargaining Order Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this proceeding to enforce a bargaining order of the Board, the employer contends that the second representation election, in which the union won by only two votes, was invalid and hence it (the employer) was under no obligation to bargain.
The sole issue in the case is whether the Board improperly resolved challenges to four ballots cast in the representation election. The union had challenged the ballots cast by employees Broek and Norris on the ground that they were supervisors, and had challenged the ballot cast by Schroder on the ground that he was a management-trainee who did not have a common interest in the terms and conditions of employment with other members of the bargaining unit. The employer challenged the vote east by Caywood on the ground that her employment had been terminated prior to the election. All of these issues were resolved by the Board adversely to the employer. In resolving challenges to ballots cast in a representation election the Board is vested with wide discretion. NLRB v. A. J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 67 S.Ct. 324, 91 L.Ed. 322 (1946).
The employer in this case must establish that the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and abused its discretion, in order to warrant setting aside the resolution made by the Board. NLRB v. Dean Foods Co., 421 F. 2d 664 (6th Cir. 1970); Westchester Plastics of Ohio, Inc. v. NLRB, 401 F. 2d 903 (6th Cir. 1968).
In our opinion there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings that Broek and Norris were supervisors and that Schroder was a management-trainee not having an interest in common with the other employees in the bargaining unit. We find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s resolution of the challenges to the ballots cast by these three employees.
With respect to Caywood, we have a substantial doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the Board. The resolution of this issue by the Board is not controlling because irrespective of its determination the union has won the election. It is therefore not necessary for us to rule thereon.
The bargaining order of the Board will therefore be enforced.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wrape Forest Indus., Inc., 596 F.2d 817 (8th Cir. 1979)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mich. Rubber Prods., Inc., 738 F.2d 111 (6th Cir. 1984)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kenny, 488 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. A. J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1946)
- Westchester Plastics OF Ohio, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 401 F.2d 903 (6th Cir. 1968)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dean Foods Co., Inc., 421 F.2d 664 (6th Cir. 1970)