Brom Mach. & Foundry Co. v. N.L.R.B., No. 77-1506

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore ROSS, STEPHENSON and WEBSTER; ROSS
Citation569 F.2d 1042
Docket NumberNo. 77-1506
Decision Date31 January 1978
Parties97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2590, 83 Lab.Cas. P 10,337 BROM MACHINE & FOUNDRY CO., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

Page 1042

569 F.2d 1042
97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2590, 83 Lab.Cas. P 10,337
BROM MACHINE & FOUNDRY CO., Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 77-1506.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 12, 1977.
Decided Jan. 31, 1978.

Emery W. Bartle (on appendix and briefs) of Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay, Minneapolis, Minn., argued and made rebuttal, for petitioner; Jay L. Bennett, Minneapolis, Minn., on appendix and briefs.

Marion Griffin and Tom Gosselin (argued), Attys., John S. Irving, 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 respondent.

Before ROSS, STEPHENSON and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

Brom Machine & Foundry Company has petitioned this court for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board finding it to have violated §§ 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 1 by refusing to bargain with International Molders & Allied Workers, Local 63, (the Union), the certified bargaining representative of its employees. The Board has filed a cross-application for enforcement of its order.

The company admittedly has refused to bargain. It contends that the Union's challenges to three ballots in a decertification

Page 1043

election should have been overruled and those ballots should have been counted. It argues that, since the Board failed to overrule those challenges, its certification of the Union was invalid. We disagree and grant the Board's cross-application for enforcement of its order.

From 1959 to 1974 an independent union represented the company's production and maintenance employees, including its patternmakers. In 1974, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election, 2 the Board conducted an election offering the company's employees three choices: 1) being unrepresented; 2) continued representation by the independent union; or 3) being represented by the Union. The stipulation described the appropriate unit for collective bargaining as:

All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees; but excluding all office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.

The eligibility list for the 1974 election included two patternmakers and a part-time janitor. 3

A majority of the employees voted to be represented by the Union and it was certified by the Regional Director. The company and the Union arrived at a bargaining agreement which expressly excluded the two patternmakers from the bargaining unit. The part-time janitor was excluded by oral agreement of the parties.

After the bargaining agreement expired on March 16, 1976, one employee filed a decertification petition. Another Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election was approved by the Regional Director. The parties' stipulation regarding the bargaining unit was basically...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • N.L.R.B. v. Hollaender Mfg. Co., No. 90-6288
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 1 Octubre 1991
    ...that basis holds an election to determine whether the employees wish to continue being represented. Brom Machine & Foundry Co. v. NLRB, 569 F.2d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1978) (quoting Continental Can Co., 217 NLRB 316 At Hollaender, the unit certified by the Board in 1965 (and not altered by la......
  • Heritage Broadcasting Co. of Michigan v. N.L.R.B., No. 01-1003.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 18 Octubre 2002
    ...labor policy. Hollaender Mfg., 942 F.2d at 326; Saints Mary & Elizabeth, 808 F.2d at 1212; accord Brom Machine & Foundry Co. v. NRLB, 569 F.2d 1042, 1044 (8th Cir.1978) (holding that the bargaining unit for decertification proceeding can be no larger than the one recognized in the last coll......
  • Boston Police Patrolmen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Labor Relations Com'n
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 12 Septiembre 1983
    ...or the unit was properly modified by contract, the 1967 certification remained in effect. Cf. Brom Mach. & Foundry Co. v. N.L.R.B., 569 F.2d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1978). Despite the association's strong feelings that its members should not work for SIU, it could not, consistently Page 734 wit......
  • Saints Mary and Elizabeth Hosp. v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 86-5114
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 13 Enero 1987
    ...employees themselves in their inclusion when the collective bargaining agreement was negotiated. Cf. Brom Machine & Foundry Co. v. NLRB, 569 F.2d 1042 (8th Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED and the Board's petition for enforcement is GRANTED in full. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • N.L.R.B. v. Hollaender Mfg. Co., No. 90-6288
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 1 Octubre 1991
    ...that basis holds an election to determine whether the employees wish to continue being represented. Brom Machine & Foundry Co. v. NLRB, 569 F.2d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1978) (quoting Continental Can Co., 217 NLRB 316 At Hollaender, the unit certified by the Board in 1965 (and not altered by la......
  • Heritage Broadcasting Co. of Michigan v. N.L.R.B., No. 01-1003.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 18 Octubre 2002
    ...labor policy. Hollaender Mfg., 942 F.2d at 326; Saints Mary & Elizabeth, 808 F.2d at 1212; accord Brom Machine & Foundry Co. v. NRLB, 569 F.2d 1042, 1044 (8th Cir.1978) (holding that the bargaining unit for decertification proceeding can be no larger than the one recognized in the last coll......
  • Boston Police Patrolmen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Labor Relations Com'n
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 12 Septiembre 1983
    ...or the unit was properly modified by contract, the 1967 certification remained in effect. Cf. Brom Mach. & Foundry Co. v. N.L.R.B., 569 F.2d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1978). Despite the association's strong feelings that its members should not work for SIU, it could not, consistently Page 734 wit......
  • Saints Mary and Elizabeth Hosp. v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 86-5114
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 13 Enero 1987
    ...employees themselves in their inclusion when the collective bargaining agreement was negotiated. Cf. Brom Machine & Foundry Co. v. NLRB, 569 F.2d 1042 (8th Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED and the Board's petition for enforcement is GRANTED in full. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT