NLRB v. Champa Linen Service Co., No. 177-70.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
Writing for the CourtHILL, SETH and HOLLOWAY, Circuit
Citation437 F.2d 1259
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CHAMPA LINEN SERVICE CO., Respondent.
Decision Date08 February 1971
Docket NumberNo. 177-70.

437 F.2d 1259 (1971)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
CHAMPA LINEN SERVICE CO., Respondent.

No. 177-70.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

February 8, 1971.


437 F.2d 1260

Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Abigail Cooley Baskir, Atty., N.L.R.B., on the brief) for petitioner.

John K. Pickens, Alexandria, Va., for respondent.

Before HILL, SETH and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges.

HILL, Circuit Judge.

By this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order issued against respondent, Champa Linen Service Company, pursuant to the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.1 In its order the Board found that Champa had violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) by refusing to bargain with the unit which had been certified to represent Champa's employees, and by unilaterally changing working conditions. The Board further found that Champa violated Section 8(a) (1) by interrogating, threatening and making abusive statements to its employees concerning their union activities, and by engaging in surveillance of those activities. Finally, the Board found that Champa violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily transferring employees Demeter and Martinez, and by subsequently discharging Demeter. The Board's order requires Champa to cease and desist from engaging in the violations and affirmatively to reinstate employees Demeter and Martinez after making them whole for any loss of wages.

The critical question posed in these enforcement proceedings is whether the unit determination made by the Board was correct and hence whether the Board properly certified the union as bargaining representative for Champa's employees.

Champa is engaged in a linen rental and supply service in Denver, Colorado. On February 8, 1968, the union filed a representation petition and sought a representation election among Champa's employees. A hearing was held to determine what grouping of Champa's employees makes up an appropriate bargaining unit. Champa was represented at the hearing and presented evidence aimed at showing that an appropriate bargaining unit would consist of laundry production and maintenance employees, including an auto mechanic, three telephone order clerks, and twelve route drivers. Following the hearing, the Regional Director determined that an appropriate bargaining unit consisted of the laundry production and maintenance employees, including the auto mechanic but excluding the twelve route drivers and the three order clerks.2

Champa requested review of the Regional Director's unit determination by the Board, but the Board denied the request on the grounds that it raised no

437 F.2d 1261
substantial issues warranting review. Accordingly, on April 23, 1968, a representation election was held and the employees within the designated bargaining unit voted to be represented by the union. Champa filed objections to the election, and on June 5, 1968, the Regional Director overruled the objections and certified the union as the collective bargaining agent for Champa's employees. Champa did not appeal this decision to the Board

Thereafter, Champa steadfastly refused to bargain with the union and the union accordingly filed unfair labor practice charges asserting primarily Champa's refusal to bargain. At the resulting unfair labor practice...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • NLRB v. Okla-Inn, No. 72-1737.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • October 26, 1973
    ...her because of her Union advocacy, in violation of section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. NLRB v. Champa 488 F.2d 508 Linen Service, 437 F.2d 1259 (10th Cir. 1971); Santangelo & Co. v. NLRB, 364 F.2d 979, 981 (10th Cir. 1966); NLRB v. Lowell Sun Publishing Co., 320 F.2d 835, 840 (1st Cir. Fin......
  • Beverly Enterprises, West Virginia, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 96-2778
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • February 13, 1998
    ...derivative unfair labor practice proceedings were conducted de novo by an administrative law judge. See NLRB v. Champa Linen Service Co., 437 F.2d 1259, 1262 (10th Beverly's petition for review is denied, and we grant enforcement of the NLRB's order. REVIEW DENIED; ENFORCEMENT GRANTED. NIEM......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Dixon Industries, Inc., No. 81-1032
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • February 16, 1983
    ...600 May Department Stores Co. v. NLRB, 326 U.S. 376, 383-84, 66 S.Ct. 203, 208, 90 L.Ed. 145 (1945) and NLRB v. Champa Linen Service Co., 437 F.2d 1259, 1262 (10th Order enforced. --------------- * Honorable George Templar of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitt......
  • Miranda v. United States, No. 69 Civ. 1575.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 27, 1971
    ...issue directed to be determined was whether Miranda was under the influence of narcotics when he pleaded guilty. The opinion states (437 F.2d at 1259): "* * * we are not convinced that it is possible to negate the claim of heavy sedation at the time of plea on the record available to the co......
4 cases
  • NLRB v. Okla-Inn, No. 72-1737.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • October 26, 1973
    ...her because of her Union advocacy, in violation of section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. NLRB v. Champa 488 F.2d 508 Linen Service, 437 F.2d 1259 (10th Cir. 1971); Santangelo & Co. v. NLRB, 364 F.2d 979, 981 (10th Cir. 1966); NLRB v. Lowell Sun Publishing Co., 320 F.2d 835, 840 (1st Cir. Fin......
  • Beverly Enterprises, West Virginia, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 96-2778
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • February 13, 1998
    ...derivative unfair labor practice proceedings were conducted de novo by an administrative law judge. See NLRB v. Champa Linen Service Co., 437 F.2d 1259, 1262 (10th Beverly's petition for review is denied, and we grant enforcement of the NLRB's order. REVIEW DENIED; ENFORCEMENT GRANTED. NIEM......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Dixon Industries, Inc., No. 81-1032
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • February 16, 1983
    ...600 May Department Stores Co. v. NLRB, 326 U.S. 376, 383-84, 66 S.Ct. 203, 208, 90 L.Ed. 145 (1945) and NLRB v. Champa Linen Service Co., 437 F.2d 1259, 1262 (10th Order enforced. --------------- * Honorable George Templar of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitt......
  • Miranda v. United States, No. 69 Civ. 1575.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 27, 1971
    ...issue directed to be determined was whether Miranda was under the influence of narcotics when he pleaded guilty. The opinion states (437 F.2d at 1259): "* * * we are not convinced that it is possible to negate the claim of heavy sedation at the time of plea on the record available to the co......

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