Uyeda v. Brooks
| Citation | 348 F.2d 633 |
| Decision Date | 21 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 16498.,16498. |
| Parties | Yoshio UYEDA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome H. BROOKS, Acting Regional Director, Seventh Region, National Labor Relations Board, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Stephen B. Goldberg, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Milton Roberts, Detroit, Mich., for appellee.
Before CECIL, O'SULLIVAN and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the issues have become moot because defendant-appellant, the Acting Regional Director of the Seventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board, has complied voluntarily with the judgment of the district court.
Mitchiyoshi Uyeda, brother of plaintiff, is engaged in business in Detroit, Michigan, as a sole proprietorship under the name of Udaco Manufacturing Company. Plaintiff has been employed in this business for more than seventeen years as a "set-up man and machine operator."
On November 14, 1963, a consent representation election by secret ballot was conducted under the supervision of the regional director among the seven production and maintenance employees of this firm. The results of the election, as set forth in the Board's tally of ballots, showed that of seven ballots cast five were opened and counted, of which three were cast for representation by the union and two against the representation by the union.
The remaining two ballots, one of which was plaintiff's, were challenged and not opened. The regional director ruled that because of "the flat salary basis of compensation which remains constant notwithstanding the number of hours worked, the close family affinity, including, until recently, collective living arrangements * * *" plaintiff enjoys a special status with the employer and shares "a community of interest with the employer rather than with the rank-and-file work force as a whole" and that plaintiff was not eligible to vote in the election. The regional director thereupon certified the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, as bargaining representative. The union then made demand that the employer meet with it for the purpose of collective bargaining. Upon refusal of the employer to bargain, the union filed charges with the Board, which thereupon issued a complaint alleging that the employer has committed an unfair labor practice in refusing to bargain.
Plaintiff filed suit in the district court charging that he was within the appropriate collective bargaining unit and was eligible to vote in the representation election; that the regional director had no power to make a determination that plaintiff was ineligible to vote on the stated ground and that his action in doing so was void; and that "plaintiff is entitled to have his ballot opened and counted, and the results of the election determined accordingly." The district court held that the regional director had no power to exclude plaintiff's ballot on the stated ground and entered summary judgment for plaintiff, ordering the regional director to cancel the certification designating the union as collective bargaining representative, to open and count plaintiff's ballot, and to determine and certify the results of the election accordingly.
Pursuant to this order of the court, the regional director revoked the certificate of representation and ordered that plaintiff's ballot be opened and counted. This resulted in three votes for representation by the union and three votes against.1 The regional director issued a new certification showing that a majority of the valid ballots had not been cast for any labor organization appearing on the ballot and that no such organization is the exclusive representative of all the employees in the unit.
The regional director also filed a timely notice of appeal to this court.
By his motion to dismiss the appeal, plaintiff contends that voluntary compliance with the order of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montalvo v. Madera Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Education
...Appellant's compliance under the compulsion of a continued suspension from school does not render the matter moot (Uyeda v. Brooks (1965) 348 F.2d 633 at 635 (6th Cir.) (Reversed on other grounds, Uyeda v. Brooks (1966) 365 F.2d 326 (6th Cir))). This position was not mentioned in the trial ......
-
Wiley v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
...... As long as Wiley's records and awards are at stake, this court can render a decision that will affect the rights of the litigants. See Uyeda v. Brooks, 348 F.2d 633 (6th Cir. 1965). . DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 94 S.Ct. 1706, 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974), does not require ......
-
VEI Catonsville, LLC v. Einbinder Props., LLC.
...to obtain a stay of the proceedings or a supersedeas.Leisnoi, Inc., ––– P.3d at ––––, 2013 WL 386373 (quoting Uyeda v. Brooks, 348 F.2d 633, 635 (6th Cir.1965) (footnotes omitted)). See also Hampton Assocs. Ltd. v. Baltimore County, 66 Md.App. 551, 556, 505 A.2d 537,cert. denied,307 Md. 406......
-
Uyeda v. Brooks
...29 U. S.C. § 151 et seq. A motion filed by appellee to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the issues had become moot, was denied, 6 Cir., 348 F.2d 633. The facts are that on November 1, 1963, appellee's employer, Mitchiyoshi Uyeda, doing business as Udaco Manufacturing Company, entered ......