383 F.2d 152 (4th Cir. 1967), 11147, General Elec. Co., Specialty Control Dept. v. N. L. R. B.
|Citation:||383 F.2d 152|
|Party Name:||GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, SPECIALTY CONTROL DEPARTMENT, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Intervenor.|
|Case Date:||September 20, 1967|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
Argued June 1, 1967.
Francis V. Lowden, Jr., Richmond, Va. (R. Kenneth Wheeler, Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell & Gibson, Richmond, Va., and Martin F. Conner, III, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief), for petitioner.
John D. Burgoyne, Atty., National Labor Relations Board (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Lawrence M. Joseph, atty., National Labor Relations Board, on brief), for respondent.
Frank J. Donner and Robert Z. Lewis, New York City, on brief, for intervenor, United, Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE).
Before SOBELOFF, BOREMAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
CRAVEN, Circuit Judge:
After seventeen months of intense campaigning, a consent election was held on May 7, 1965, among production and maintenance employees at General Electric's Specialty Control Department plant in Waynesboro, Virginia. There were 531 votes for the Union, 1 nine votes for an intervening union, 2 443 votes against the unions, and twenty-eight void and challenged ballots. The Company filed timely objections to the election. After
its contentions were rejected, the Company refused to bargain with the certified Union and sought judicial review of the Board's findings.
The Company has abandoned all but two of its original objections to the election. They are based on alleged Union misrepresentations. The first statement consists of a single sentence in a sixteen-page Union booklet and reads, 'In fact the janitors in Canada get more money than skilled employees at GE Waynesboro.' 3
The Board assumed for purposes of its decision that the statement was a material misrepresentation which affected the outcome of the election. 4 The Board ruled, however, that the election result should stand since there was an adequate opportunity for the Company to reply before the election. Compare NLRB v. Bata Shoe Co., 377 F.2d 821 (4th Cir. April 6, 1967).
We have made a careful review of the record and reject the Company's position that there was no substantial evidence...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP