N.L.R.B. v. Claxton Poultry Co., Inc., 77-1267
| Citation | 581 F.2d 1133 |
| Decision Date | 10 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1267,77-1267 |
| Parties | 99 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2790, 84 Lab.Cas. P 10,859 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CLAXTON POULTRY CO., INC., Respondent. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Marion L. Griffin, Supervisor, Joseph P. Norelli, Atty., John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor, Associate Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
James W. Wimberly, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.
Before JONES, GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.
The Board found that the company refused to bargain with the certified representative after a Board-conducted election. It ordered the company to bargain, the company refused and the Board applied for enforcement. The company admits the refusal to bargain and contests the validity of the election.
The representation petition was filed December 17, 1974, and the election held February 21, 1975, with 136 votes for the union, 95 against, and 17 challenged ballots. The company filed five post-election objections. After investigation and without hearing the Regional Director recommended that all objections be denied. The company filed no exceptions to the recommendation regarding Objection 3, and it dropped out of the case. The Board adopted the Regional Director's recommendations that Objections 2 and 4 be overruled and remanded for a hearing on Objections 1 and 5 on the ground that they raised factual issues requiring a hearing. A Hearing Officer conducted a hearing and recommended that 1 and 5 be denied. The Board adopted his recommendation and certified the union.
We consider the Board's rulings on Objections 1, 2, 4 and 5, recognizing that the burden was upon the objecting employer to prove that there had been prejudicial unfairness in the election, a heavy burden which can only be discharged by showing that unlawful acts occurred that interfered with the employees' exercise of free choice to the extent that they materially affected the results of the election. NLRB v. Golden Age Beverage Co., 415 F.2d 26 (CA5, 1969). The primary determination is for the Board, subject to our review under substantial evidence standards. Id.
Objection 1 threats of economic reprisal by union agents directed to voters if they did not Support the union (denied after hearing). The Board's policy is not to consider evidence of pre-election misconduct that is unduly remote from the date of the election, and in implementing this policy it follows a rule of thumb that it will not consider evidence of misconduct occurring prior to the filing of the representation petition, Ideal Electric,134 N.L.R.B. 1275 (1961). The Board refused to consider testimony concerning statements made by union agents in November 1974 and at a union meeting held December 14, 1974. We have recognized the purpose of the Ideal Electric rule and have approved its application, Golden Age, supra; Independent Inc. v. NLRB, 406 F.2d 203 (CA5, 1969). The Board has consistently declined to depart from the Ideal Electric standard except in very unusual circumstances. 1 We are not able to say that the Board erred in applying Ideal Electric here.
A statement allegedly was made at a February 15 meeting to the general effect that if the union did not win some employees might lose their jobs. The Hearing Officer made a routine credibility choice, which a court should not disturb, that the statement was not made.
A witness testified that at a meeting on January 4 a union agent said that employees who signed could make life miserable for those who worked beside them and didn't sign. Another described an agent as saying at the meeting that the signers could make it miserable for the non-signers. These statements, if made, do not appear to us to be threats of economic reprisals. But if they were economic threats they are embraced in the credited denial by witness Lee that neither he nor any other union representative threatened the employees with economic reprisals, that is, the Board by accepting Lee's denial concluded the statements were not made at all.
There was no abuse of discretion in denying Objection 1.
Objection 2 threats of economic reprisals by union agents or by employees against eligible voters if they did not Vote for the union (denied without hearing). The Regional Director, in his report of investigation, lumped together Objections 1 and 2 because both alleged economic threats. Objection 1, alleging economic threats directed at eligible voters who did not Support the union, was supported by affidavits embracing a number of incidents in-plant and at union meetings elsewhere, extending over December, January and February. Objection 2 alleged economic threats directed at eligible voters who did not Vote for the union, and the supporting evidence related to a single incident; one person stated that she attended a union meeting in the Masonic Hall between the second and third weeks of December 1974, at which a union organizer conducting the meeting stated that employees who voted against the union and did not join would lose their jobs if the union got in. Two other persons presented by the employer were at the meeting but did not hear the alleged remark. 2 With respect to all threats of economic reprisals embraced within Objections 1 and 2, and allegedly made in union meetings, which included the single threat said to be directed at those who Voted against the union, the Regional Director concluded that assuming arguendo the threats were made they were neutralized by the employer's statements; specifically the employer's campaign materials were couched in language unmistakably conveying to the employees that the union had no power to affect job tenure.
The employer does not claim that there were any threats directed at persons Voting against the union other than the one just described but rather that a hearing was required on Objection 2 because the objection raised substantial and material factual issues which could be resolved only by a hearing. The Regional Director, however, pretermitted the "one heard it, two didn't" evidence, as he was entitled to do and assumed arguendo that the statement was made and addressed its potential impact on the election. If all the facts contended for by the objecting party are credited and no ground is shown which would warrant setting aside the election, a hearing is not required to determine the validity of the election. NLRB v. Golden Age, 415 F.2d at 33; NLRB v. Smith Industries, Inc., 403 F.2d 889, 894 (CA5, 1968); NLRB v. Capitan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Certainteed Corp. v. N.L.R.B.
...and hold as a matter of law that no ground has been shown which would warrant setting aside the election. See NLRB v. Claxton Poultry Co. 581 F.2d 1133, 1136 (5th Cir.1978) (no hearing required where RD rules as a matter of law that facts complained of do not warrant setting aside an electi......
-
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. N.L.R.B.
...the election, in accord with the rule stated in Ideal Electric & Mfg. Co., 134 NLRB 1275 (1961); see NLRB v. Claxton Poultry Co., 581 F.2d 1133, 1135 (5th Cir.1978) (per curiam ), that an election will not be set aside based on conduct that occurred prior to the filing of the election petit......
-
N.L.R.B. v. L & J Equipment Co., Inc.
...the fairness of an election. Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company, 134 N.L.R.B. 1275 (1961). See also N.L.R.B. v. Claxton Poultry Co., Inc., 581 F.2d 1133, 1135 (5th Cir.1978). Nevertheless, the hearing officer did not apply the rule strictly, for he later discussed the temporal importa......
-
Kaolin Mushroom Farms, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd.
...or violence that are so egregious that an atmosphere of coercion still remained at the time of the election. See NLRB v. Claxton Poultry Co., Inc., 581 F.2d 1133 (5th Cir.1978). Both the Board and the hearing examiner agreed that such threats or violence did not occur in this case, and the ......