NLRB v. HARDY-HERPOLSHEIMER DIV., ALLIED STORES, MICH., 71-1396.
| Decision Date | 21 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1396.,71-1396. |
| Citation | 453 F.2d 877 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. HARDY-HERPOLSHEIMER DIVISION OF ALLIED STORES OF MICH., INC., et al., Respondents, and Retail Store Employees Union, Local 20, RCIA, AFL-CIO, Intervening Petitioner. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Paul J. Spielberg, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Eugene G. Goslee, Acting Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Baruch A. Fellner, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief.
Theodore Sachs, Detroit, Mich., for intervenor; Rothe, Marston, Mazey, Sachs, O'Connell, Nunn & Freid, Detroit, Mich., on brief.
John W. Cummiskey, Grand Rapids, Mich., for respondents; Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief.
Before WEICK, PECK and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
In this proceeding to enforce a bargaining order of the Board, the employer contends that the second representation election, in which the union won by only two votes, was invalid and hence it (the employer) was under no obligation to bargain.
The sole issue in the case is whether the Board improperly resolved challenges to four ballots cast in the representation election. The union had challenged the ballots cast by employees Broek and Norris on the ground that they were supervisors, and had challenged the ballot cast by Schroder on the ground that he was a management-trainee who did not have a common interest in the terms and conditions of employment with other members of the bargaining unit. The employer challenged the vote cast by Caywood on the ground that her employment had been terminated prior to the election. All of these issues were resolved by the Board adversely to the employer.
In resolving challenges to ballots cast in a representation election the Board is vested with wide discretion. NLRB v. A. J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 67 S.Ct. 324, 91 L.Ed. 322 (1946).
The employer in this case must establish that the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and abused its discretion, in order to warrant setting aside the resolution made by the Board. NLRB v. Dean Foods Co., 421 F.2d 664 (6th Cir.1970); Westchester Plastics of Ohio, Inc. v. NLRB, 401 F.2d 903 (6th Cir.1968).
In our opinion there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings that Broek and Norris were supervisors and that Schroder was a management-trainee not having an interest in common with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
...90 F.3d 1150, 1157 (6th Cir.1996) (citing Bry–Fern Care Ctr., Inc. v. NLRB., 21 F.3d 706, 709 (6th Cir.1994); NLRB. v. Hardy–Herpolsheimer, 453 F.2d 877, 878 (6th Cir.1972)). We review deferentially the Board's determination of an appropriate bargaining unit because “[t]he Board has wide di......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Wrape Forest Industries, Inc., 78-1252
...set aside the Board's determination only if it has acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion. NLRB v. Hardy-Herpolsheimer Division of Allied Stores, Inc., 453 F.2d 877, 878 (6th Cir. 1972). Cf. Wilkinson Manufacturing Co. v. NLRB, 456 F.2d 298 (8th Cir. 1972). As the Second Circuit has st......
-
Mitchellace, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion. Bry-Fern Care Ctr., Inc. v. NLRB, 21 F.3d 706, 709 (6th Cir.1994); NLRB v. Hardy-Herpolsheimer, 453 F.2d 877, 878 (6th Cir.1972). The Board's factual findings, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. "Determining an appropriate bargaini......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Apex Paper Box Co., 91-6189
...Board's determination of voter eligibility through the use of its challenged-ballot procedure. NLRB v. Hardy-Herpolsheimer Div. of Allied Stores of Mich., Inc., 453 F.2d 877, 878 (6th Cir.1972). Thus, when a voter's eligibility is contested, "the burden is on the [objecting party] to show t......