Luminator Division of Gulton Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 72-1675 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 07 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1675 Summary Calendar.,72-1675 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 469 F.2d 1371 |
| Parties | LUMINATOR DIVISION OF GULTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner-Cross Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent-Cross Petitioner. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Theophil C. Kammholz, Theodore J. Tierney, Chicago, Ill., Lyne, Klein, & French, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D. C., Elmer P. Davis, Regional Director, NLRB, Fort Worth, Tex., for respondent.
Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
Luminator Division of Gulton Industries, Inc. the Company and International Union of Electrical Radio, and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO the Union agreed to a consent election for employees at the Company plant at Plano, Texas. This was to be pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election".1 The election was held from 3:00 to 4:00 P.M. July 22, 1972, resulting in 78 votes for the Union, 61 against the Union, with 5 challenged ballots. The Regional Director certified the tally of ballots.
With the Regional Director the Company filed "Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election", contending that the election should be set aside because (1) the Union on the day prior to the election made material misrepresentations as to wages, (2) the Company after learning of the false assertion did not have time to correct the statement, (3) the Union had special knowledge as to the subject matter of the statement, and (4) the statement could not have been intelligently evaluated by the employees who received it.
The challenged statement was contained in a leaflet which the Union mailed to all employees. It was received by the employees at their home on the day before the election. It is obvious from the record that the Company had not more than twenty-six hours in which to have attempted to correct the misrepresentation.
The leaflet in large type, on the first page, stated:
"From April 6, 1970 to June 5, 1971—IUE Local 487 ((Gulton Industries), Metuchen, New Jersey, will receive a total of 44 cents per hour in wage increases."
This statement was false. The Metuchen agreement did not provide for increases of forty-four cents per hour from April 6, 1970 to June 5, 1971, but rather the increases were to take place over a period from April 6, 1970 to June 6, 1972.
Inside the leaflet the correct period of the wage increases was stated in the following form:
Thus, the employees were told one thing on the front page of the leaflet and something else again on the inside —with no guide by which they could have known which of the contradictory statements was intended to be the correct one. Significantly enough, however, the false statement was given the more accessible billing.
In connection with its objections to the Regional Director as to the conduct affecting the election the Company requested a hearing. It asked the Regional Director to determine if disputed facts existed and if they did that "he designate a hearing officer to take evidence with regard thereto." The Regional Director in his Report on Objections recommended to the Board that the Company's objections to the conduct of the election be overruled and that the Union be certified as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. The Regional Director did not pass on the Company's request for a hearing.
In his report the Regional Director stated that he had made an investigation of the Company's objections to the conduct of the election. He said that whether questionable campaign communications required an election to be invalidated depended on the threefold test2 established in Pepperell v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 1968, 403 F.2d 520, 523:
"(1) whether there has been a misrepresentation of material fact; (2) whether the misrepresentation came from a party who was in an authoritative position to know the truth or who had special knowledge of the facts; and (3) whether the other party in the election had adequate opportunity to reply and to correct the misrepresentation."
The Regional Director then held:
"(1) the misstatement as to wages could be considered a material misrepresentation; (2) the misrepresentation did not come from a party who had special knowledge of the true facts; and (3) the employer had ample time to communicate with its employees."
The Regional Director added:
The Company filed "Exceptions to the Report of the Regional Director", requesting that a hearing on the objections be held. The Company objections to the report of the Regional Director included (1) the Regional Director's failure to rule on the Company's request for a hearing and (2) the Regional Director's conclusion that the Company had ample time to rebut the Union's misrepresentation.
The Board adopted the Regional Director's fact determinations except that it found the Union did have special knowledge of the true facts. Hence, the finding that the employer had ample time to correct the misrepresentation was the crucial ground on which the election was upheld.
The Board denied the Company objections and the request for a hearing, stating:
"The employer\'s exceptions raise no material or substantial issues of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the Regional Director\'s findings and recommendations or require a hearing."
The Board then certified the Union as the bargaining representative for the appropriate unit.
The Company refused to bargain with the Union. The Union filed charges with the Board. The Board issued a complaint. The Company answered and denied violations of §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1). The General Counsel then moved for summary judgment. The Company in its response to the motion for summary judgment requested a hearing. The Company also filed an offer of proof and a supplemental offer of proof in support of its request for a hearing.
The Board denied a hearing and granted the motion for summary judgment, holding that the Company's objections had been previously litigated before the Regional Director and the Board and that the Company "in a proceeding alleging a violation of § 8(a)(5) is not entitled to relitigate issues which were or could have been litigated in a prior representation proceeding." Therefore, the Board found that the Company had not raised any issue which was properly litigable in the unfair labor practice proceeding. The Board then ordered the Company to bargain.
The case is before this Court on (1) the Company's petition for review of the Board finding that it had violated §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1), and (2) the Board's cross petition seeking enforcement of its order.
Section 102.69(e), 29 C.F.R. 102.69(e), provides that in cases involving consent elections (pursuant to § 102.62(b) —Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election):
". . . if exceptions are filed . . . to the report...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vitek Electronics, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...Cir. 1973); see also Howard Plating Industries v. NLRB, 635 F.2d 532 (6th Cir. 1980) (per curiam); Luminator Division of Gulton Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 469 F.2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1972). The RD argued in his report that the interpretive premise of this objection was not "necessarily" correct.......
-
Certainteed Corp. v. N.L.R.B.
...factual issue requiring a hearing is 'a question of law and ultimately a question for the courts.' " Luminator Division of Gulton Industries v. NLRB, 469 F.2d 1371, 1374 (5th Cir.1972) (quoting NLRB v. Bata Shoe Co., 377 F.2d 821, 826 (4th Cir.1967)). Our review of this decision is therefor......
-
George Arakelian Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. of State of Cal.
...v. Skelly Oil Co. (Kansas City, Mo., Skelgas D.M.B.) (8th Cir.1973) 473 F.2d 1079, 1083, fn. 5; Luminator Division of Gulton Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B. (5th Cir.1972) 469 F.2d 1371, 1374.) We conclude that petitioner's objections based on Board agent misconduct were sufficient to require ......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Claxton Mfg. Co., Inc., 79-1527
...has made an adequate showing is " 'a question of law and ultimately a question for the courts,' " Luminator Division of Gulton Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 469 F.2d 1371, 1374 (5th Cir. 1972), Quoting NLRB v. Bata Shoe Co., 377 F.2d 821, 826 (4th Cir.), Cert. denied, 389 U.S. 917, 88 S.Ct. 238......