N.L.R.B. v. North Elec. Co., Plant No. 10
| Decision Date | 26 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1211,79-1211 |
| Citation | 644 F.2d 580 |
| Parties | 106 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2935, 90 Lab.Cas. P 12,665 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. NORTH ELECTRIC COMPANY, PLANT NO. 10, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Elliott Moore, Kathy Krieger, Howard E. Perlstein, Deputy Associates Gen. Counsel, James D. Donathen, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Curtis L. Mack, Director, Region 10, N. L. R. B., Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
John M. Arnold, Smith, Currie & Hancock, Timothy W. Johnson, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Before BROWN and JONES, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
This case is before the court on the petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order to North Electric Company, Plant No. 10 (North) to bargain with the Communications Workers of America (Union). The Board's decision and order are reported at 240 N.L.R.B. No. 32.
In October, 1974, a representation election was held at North's plant in Gray, Tennessee. The Union lost the election by a two-to-one margin, 1441 to 762. The Union then filed unfair labor practice charges against North, alleging that North had engaged in prohibited activities that undermined the fairness of the election and demanded a new election. A complaint was issued by the General Counsel and a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ found that North had committed no unfair labor practices during the election campaign and dismissed the complaint. The Board, however, concluded that North had committed unfair labor practices during the campaign, reversed the ALJ and ordered a new election. 225 N.L.R.B. No. 53. This court enforced the Board's order. NLRB v. North Electric, 588 F.2d 213 (6th Cir. 1978).
The second election was conducted on October 6 and 7, 1976. This time the Union won by a vote of 682 to 679. There were five void and two challenged ballots. North filed timely objections to the election on the grounds that (1) employees were unlawfully threatened by Union supporters, and (2) material misrepresentations were made on the eve of the election by the Union to employees at a time when North was unable to effectively reply. The Regional Director, in the exercise of his reasonable discretion decided not to conduct a hearing on North's objections, but he did conduct an administrative investigation pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 102.69(d). On the basis of his administrative investigation the Regional Director issued a report in which he recommended that North's objections be overruled and the Union be certified. The Board adopted the Regional Director's findings and certified the Union.
North then refused to bargain with the Union. In the unfair labor practice proceeding that followed North acknowledged that it had refused to bargain with the Union, but denied that it had violated Section 8(a)(5) because, North argued, the Board had improperly certified the Union. The Board granted the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment and this proceeding followed.
The purpose of North's refusal to bargain was to obtain judicial review of the Board's decision to overrule North's election objections. Here North raises both substantive and procedural complaints about the Board's decision to adopt the Regional Director's report, overrule its objections and certify the Union. The substantive complaint is that the Board, as a matter of law, incorrectly decided the two issues raised by North in the representation proceedings; i. e., employees were unlawfully threatened and material misrepresentations were made by the Union on the eve of the election. The procedural complaint is that the Board did not have the entire record before it when it decided to adopt the Regional Director's report. Since we agree with North that proper procedures were not followed we do not deal with the substantive issues at this time.
The procedural problem with which we are confronted is one that has been recurring with some regularity in the last few years. There seems to have been a rash of cases in which the Regional Director has failed to transmit the record to the Board along with his recommendations. As noted earlier, the Regional Director did not hold a hearing on North's election objections but conducted an administrative investigation. In the process of making his investigation the Regional Director collected and considered a variety of documentary evidence. This evidence is discussed in the Regional Director's report, and, indeed, is relied upon to support the report's conclusions. The Regional Director did not, however, transmit this evidence to the Board as part of the record. The documents that were not transmitted to the Board include a copy of the Union's election eve mailing that North argues contains material misrepresentations, a Union leaflet containing statements related to the mailing, affidavits taken by Board agents of employees who were allegedly threatened and the statement of an employee who was allegedly threatened. Therefore, in considering North's election objections the Board did not have the benefit of actually reviewing the documents in the record. North argues that this was a violation by the Board of its own regulation (29 C.F.R. § 102.69(g)) as well as a denial of procedural due process.
We have considered this issue several times in the past two years and are now called upon to clarify the scope of our prior decisions. The question with which we are confronted is as follows: does 29 C.F.R. § 102.69(g) require the Regional Director to transmit the entire record to the Board in cases in which there is only an administrative investigation and no hearing. 29 C.F.R. § 102.69(g) provides:
(g) The notice of hearing, motions, rulings, orders, stenographic report of the hearing, stipulations, exceptions, documentary evidence, together with the objections to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election, any report on such objections, any report on challenged ballots, exceptions to any such report, any briefs or other legal memoranda submitted by the parties, the decision of the regional director, if any, and the record previously made as described in § 102.68, shall constitute the record in the case. Materials other than those set out above shall not be a part of the record; except that in a proceeding in which no hearing is held, a party filing exceptions to a regional director's report on objections or challenges, a request for review of a regional director's decision on objections or challenges, or any opposition thereto, may append to its submission to the Board copies of documents it has timely submitted to the regional director and which were not included in the report or decision. Immediately upon issuance of a report on objections or challenges, or both, upon issuance by the regional director of an order transferring the case to the Board, or upon issuance of an order granting a request for review by the Board, the regional director shall transmit the record to the Board.
The plain language of the regulation seems to require the Regional Director to transmit the entire record to the Board in all cases. The Board argues, 1 however, that the Regional Director is required to transmit the entire record only in cases in which there was a hearing. For this proposition the Board relies on the second sentence of 29 C.F.R. § 102.69(g), which provides that in cases in which no hearing is held the objecting party may submit copies of documents to the Board that were submitted to the Regional Director. The Board's position is that if the Regional Director were required to transmit the record in all cases this provision would be meaningless. The Board also points out that it is not required to hold a hearing on all election objections, nor is it required to make a de novo review after the Regional Director has conducted an administrative investigation.
It is clear that a party objecting to an election has the right to have its objections reviewed by the Board. 29 C.F.R. § 102.69. Simply because a party objects to the conduct of an election does not, however, mean it has the right to a hearing. Under Board regulations either the Regional Director or the Board may determine, in the exercise of reasonable discretion, that a hearing is warranted. On the other hand, after reviewing the objections and the evidence, they may decide that no hearing is necessary. Nothing said here should be taken to indicate that the Board is required to hold a hearing in every case raising election objections. In proper cases election objections may be resolved on the basis of an administrative investigation alone. NLRB v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., 379 F.2d 172, 178 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 958, 88 S.Ct. 388, 19 L.Ed.2d 364 (1967).
The present case was decided on the basis of an administrative investigation. North's primary argument is not that it was wrongfully denied a hearing, although that argument is raised, but rather that the Board failed to consider the evidence in the record. The Board argues that it need not review the evidence considered by the Regional Director, and that it may confine its review to the Regional Director's report and the briefs submitted by the parties. We note, though, that even under the Board's interpretation of 29 C.F.R. § 102.69(g), while the Regional Director is not required to transmit the record, the objecting party can submit to the Board all the documentary evidence it submitted to the Regional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kitchen Fresh, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 673 F.2d 150 (6th Cir.1982); ATR Wire and Cable Co. v. NLRB, 671 F.2d 188 (6th Cir.1982); NLRB v. North Electric Co., Plant No. 10, 644 F.2d 580 (6th Cir.1981); NLRB v. Curtis Noll Corp., 634 F.2d 1027 (6th Cir.1980); Prestolite Wire Division v. NLRB, 592 F.2d 302 (6th Cir......
-
Vitek Electronics, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...to require that the RD submit the results of its ex parte investigation to the Board for its review. See generally NLRB v. North Elec. Co., 644 F.2d 580 (6th Cir. 1981). Because Vitek's request could affect only the Board's decision on the merits of the intimidation claim, and because we ar......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Northeastern University
...Co. v. NLRB, 649 F.2d 397 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam ) (limiting Prestolite, infra, and North Electric, infra ); NLRB v. North Electric Co., 644 F.2d 580 (6th Cir.1981); Randall, Burkart/Randall Division v. NLRB, 638 F.2d 957 (6th Cir.1981) (limiting Prestolite, infra ); NLRB v. Curtis Noll......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Belcor, Inc.
...Co., 613 F.2d 1364, 1366-67 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 618 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1980). In N.L.R.B. v. North Electric Co., Plant No. 10, 644 F.2d 580, 584 (6th Cir. 1981), the Sixth Circuit discussed the appropriate appellate procedures to follow where the Board adopts the director......