National Cash Register Company v. NLRB
| Decision Date | 20 August 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 26175.,26175. |
| Citation | 415 F.2d 1012 |
| Parties | The NATIONAL CASH REGISTER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. The NATIONAL CASH REGISTER COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles Kelso, Atlanta, Ga., Fisher & Phillips, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., Walter C. Phillips, Director, 10th Region, National Labor Relations Board, Atlanta, Ga., Allison W. Brown, Jr., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Leonard M. Wagman, Allen H. Sachsel, Attys., N.L.R.B., for respondent.
Before WISDOM and CARSWELL, Circuit Judges, and ROBERTS, District Judge.
This case comes before the Court on petition to review and set aside a final order of the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to § 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The National Labor Relations Board has cross filed an application for enforcement of its order pursuant to § 10(e) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). The petition to review and set aside will be granted; the petition to enforce will be denied.
The Board found that the Company violated § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union after the Union had won a consent election. The Company filed timely objections to the election which had resulted in 22 votes for the Union and 21 votes for the Company with one void ballot. The objections were based upon a leaflet distributed by the Union on the day of the election. The Company requested a hearing which was denied. Whereupon the Regional Director filed a Report on Objections in which he recommended that the Board certify the Union. The Board accepted the recommendation of the Regional Director and certified the Union. The Company refused to bargain upon request and was found in violation of § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
The Union leaflet, which forms the basis of the dispute, was distributed to the Company's Birmingham branch employees by the Federation of Business Machine Technicians and Engineers Association on the day of the election. The Company objects to three statements and assertions contained in the leaflet.
First, the Company objects, as false and misleading, to the inclusion of a portion only of a collective bargaining clause in a contract between the Company's New York employees and the Union concerning involuntary transfers. The quoted portion states:
"Section 2.3 — Transfers to Another Shift — Transfers from one shift to another shall be voluntary and where more more than one employee seeks to transfer to a vacancy on another shift, the employee with the highest seniority shall fill the vacancy. * * *"
The leaflet omitted the final paragraph which allowed the Company to assign shifts on an involuntary basis if no volunteers applied. The leaflet went on to say:
In the Report on Objections the regional director interpreted this portion of the leaflet as stating a "goal" of the petitioner "and does not so misrepresent the policies of the Employer as to become objectionable."1
The Company also objected to the statement that "for years" and at least on December 29, 1964, Union members received holiday pay equal to 2½ times normal while Birmingham employees received only double time. The Director in effect conceded the falsity of the statement but stated that because the contract mentioned in the leaflet was signed by the Company and Union on February 17, 1967 and made retroactive to November 1, 1966 and the Company sent a letter to all Technical employees advising them of a comprehensive "improvement package", effective that date, "the employees in Birmingham should not have been misled by the part of the leaflet pertaining to holiday pay and could evaluate the statement accordingly."
Finally the Company objected to the statement that "since 1967 Union members have been getting top pay in eight (8) years while it took us Birmingham employees 14 to reach the same scale." The Company offered evidence that union contracts covering New York employees prior to November 1, 1964, did not contain any set schedule for obtaining top pay and that increases beyond the fifth year were merit and not automatic increases. The Director found that the leaflet "did not state that top pay was reached by virtue of automatic increases since 1957 and the Employer does admit that increases beyond the fifth year were handled on merit basis and did not preclude the possibility of union people reaching top pay in eight years as stated in the leaflet."2
The Company contends that in the event that this Court refuses to evaluate the facts in the record and set aside the Board's Order to Bargain it is entitled, on remand, to a full hearing which has heretofore been denied by the Board.
It is well settled that in order to be entitled to a hearing a party must supply the Board with "specific evidence" which would constitute a prima facia case of election irregularities. N. L.R.B. v. O. K. Van Storage, Inc., 297 F.2d 74, 75 (5th Cir. 1961); N.L.R.B. v. Air Control Products of St. Petersburg, Inc. 335 F.2d 245, 250 (5th Cir. 1964). If, however, a prima facia case is submitted in which there are no "substantial and material factual issues" to be determined, N.L.R.B. v. Smith Industries, 403 F.2d 889, 892 (5th Cir. 1968), or which merely "question the ultimate interpretation placed by the Director upon certain conduct." N.L.R. B. v. Simplot Co., 322 F.2d 170, 172 (9th Cir. 1963) a hearing is not required.
In the instant case it is clear that the Union leaflet and the objections raised by the Company, along with supporting documents and affidavits filed with the Director, afforded a sufficient record upon which the Regional Director could make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Company has not alleged, nor has the record revealed, the existence of any material facts or issues which would require a hearing or which could not be adequately presented in writing. The present case simply involves the interpretation of the effect of the Union leaflet on the exercise of a free choice by the voters in light of Company practices, agreements and contracts established on the records.
Under the circumstances of this case it was not an abuse of discretion for the Board to deny a hearing which "would serve only to permit argument," N.L.R.B. v. Simplot Co., supra. Likewise, this Court, under the circumstances, is not compelled to remand this case having found the record sufficient at this point for final determination.
In the supervision and conduct of elections the Board is given a wide but not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co., Hartwell Div.
...455 F.2d 871, 873, n. 10 (5th Cir., 1972), or where the effect of the misconduct is apparent on the record, National Cash Register Co. v. N.L.R.B., 415 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir., 1969). Compare N.L.R.B. v. Overland Hauling Co., 3 Third party and employee conduct can reach such a level requiring t......
-
NLRB v. Singleton Packing Corp.
...election"? Golden Age Beverage at 33; NLRB v. Crest Leather Manufacturing Corp., supra, 414 F.2d, at 423; National Cash Register Co. v. NLRB, 5 Cir. Aug. 20, 1969, 415 F.2d 1012. (2) Is there a substantial and material factual issue concerning this evidence that only a hearing can resolve? ......
-
NLRB v. CARLTON McLENDON FURNITURE CO. INC.
...5th Cir. 1972, 455 F.2d 871, 873, fn. 10, or where the effect of the misconduct is apparent on the record, National Cash Register Co. v. N.L.R.B., 5th Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 1012, 1015. See N.L.R.B. v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co., supra, 470 F.2d at 1331, fn. 2; N.L.R.B. v. Golden Age Beverage C......
-
NLRB v. Cactus Drilling Corporation
...v. N. L. R. B., 403 F.2d 520 (5th Cir., 1968), cert. den. 395 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 1774, 23 L.Ed.2d 238; National Cash Register v. N. L. R. B., 415 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir., 1969); S. H. Kress v. N. L. R. B., 430 F.2d 1234 (5th Cir., Here, the Union's statements about the 40¢ per hour wage hike fo......