NLRB v. Process Corporation, No. 17306.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtKILEY and CUMMINGS, Circuit , and ESCHBACH
Citation412 F.2d 215
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. The PROCESS CORPORATION, Respondent.
Decision Date23 June 1969
Docket NumberNo. 17306.

412 F.2d 215 (1969)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
The PROCESS CORPORATION, Respondent.

No. 17306.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

June 23, 1969.


412 F.2d 216

Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Ian D. Lanoff, Attorney, N.L. R.B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, William F. Wachter, Attorney, N.L.R.B., for petitioner.

Jerry Kronenberg, Herbert L. Borovsky, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Before KILEY and CUMMINGS, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH, District Judge.1

ESCHBACH, District Judge.

This case is before the court upon the petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order of March 21, 1968, which directs respondent, The Process Corporation hereinafter "Company", to bargain with the Chicago Printing Pressmen's Union No. 3 upon request. Three issues are presented: (1) Did the Board accord proper review to the Hearing Officer's Report concerning an underlying representation proceeding? (2) Is there substantial evidence to support the Board's findings? (3) Did the Board order the appropriate remedy? We conclude that the Board's order should be enforced.

The Company is engaged in the printing of Christmas greeting cards. On September 26, 1966, a representation petition was filed by the union seeking certification as the bargaining representative of the Company's pressroom employees. On November 1, 1966, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, the Board conducted a secret ballot election. Of thirty-three potentially eligible voters, sixteen voted in favor of the union, fifteen voted against, and the union challenged two voters on the ground that they were "supervisors" within the meaning of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(11) (1964), and therefore not entitled to vote. Since the challenged ballots were sufficient to affect the outcome of the election, the Regional Director conducted an administrative investigation and, on December 15, 1966, issued a Report in which he ordered that a formal hearing be held with respect to the duties, responsibilities,

412 F.2d 217
and authority of the two challenged voters, Steve Stec and Emil Rizner, in order to determine their eligibility to vote

The Hearing Officer conducted an evidentiary hearing and determined that Stec and Rizner were "supervisors" and recommended that the challenges be sustained. Pursuant to this recommendation, the Board certified the union on May 19, 1967. The Company, however, refused repeated requests by the union that bargaining be undertaken. Thereafter, pursuant to a charge filed by the union, the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging that the Company had committed unfair labor practices as defined by 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a) (1), (a) (5) (1964). The cause came before a Trial Examiner who found that the Company had committed an unfair labor practice. On March 21, 1968, the Board adopted the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations and ordered the Company to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and to bargain upon request with the union. The Company refused to comply, and the Board petitioned this court for enforcement of its order.

I.

At the hearing before the Trial Examiner in the unfair labor practices proceeding, the Company attempted to present to the Trial Examiner the same evidence which had been adduced before the Hearing Officer in the representation proceeding. The Company's view was that there had been no plenary review by the Board of the findings of the Hearing Officer and that the only method by which it would ever obtain this Board review was to reintroduce this evidence before the Trial Examiner. But the Trial Examiner refused to hear this evidence. The Company apparently would have this court remand the proceedings to the Board for a full review of the Hearing Officer's findings.

To support its contentions that the Board has never adequately reviewed the findings of the Hearing Officer, the Company points to the allegedly pro forma nature of the Board's Certification Order of May 19, 1967, and relies upon Pepsi-Cola Buffalo Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 409 F.2d 676 (2d Cir. 1969). The Company's argument is without merit, however, because the Board did give an adequate review to the Hearing Officer's report on challenged voters.

The Company objects to the fact that the Board rejected its contentions summarily without discussion or citation of authority. The Board, however, is not required to adhere to any particular form in issuing its decisions. While a more...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Van Leer Containers, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 86-1799
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 15, 1988
    ...(Board does not violate Sec. 557(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act by summarily adopting examiner's opinion); NLRB v. Process Corp., 412 F.2d 215, 217 (7th Cir.1969) ("While a more extended discussion might be the better practice, the Board did state that it had reviewed the Hearing Of......
  • Human Development Ass'n v. N.L.R.B., No. 89-1551
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 9, 1991
    ...objection to a doctrine applied without interruption for nearly fifty years. Although "the better practice," see NLRB v. Process Corp., 412 F.2d 215, 217 (7th Cir.1969), might have been to identify and, citing Flatbush Manor, to brush off the argument based upon Bruckner, the ruling under r......
  • Dynamic Mach. Co. v. N.L.R.B., No. 76-1036
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 31, 1977
    ...are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, we permit the Board "a large measure of informed discretion." N.L.R.B. v. Process Corp., 412 F.2d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 1969); N.L.R.B. v. American Oil Co., 387 F.2d 786, 788 (7th Cir. 1967). In view of this deference due the Board's practical exp......
  • Borek Motor Sales, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 17325.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 8, 1970
    ...to the National Labor Relations Board as well as other agencies of the Government. National Labor Relations Board v. Process Corporation, 412 F.2d 215, 217 (7th Cir. 1969); American President Lines, Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 F.2d 490, 492 (9th Cir. 1965); Division 1142 v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Van Leer Containers, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 86-1799
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 15, 1988
    ...(Board does not violate Sec. 557(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act by summarily adopting examiner's opinion); NLRB v. Process Corp., 412 F.2d 215, 217 (7th Cir.1969) ("While a more extended discussion might be the better practice, the Board did state that it had reviewed the Hearing Of......
  • Human Development Ass'n v. N.L.R.B., No. 89-1551
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 9, 1991
    ...objection to a doctrine applied without interruption for nearly fifty years. Although "the better practice," see NLRB v. Process Corp., 412 F.2d 215, 217 (7th Cir.1969), might have been to identify and, citing Flatbush Manor, to brush off the argument based upon Bruckner, the ruling under r......
  • Dynamic Mach. Co. v. N.L.R.B., No. 76-1036
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 31, 1977
    ...are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, we permit the Board "a large measure of informed discretion." N.L.R.B. v. Process Corp., 412 F.2d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 1969); N.L.R.B. v. American Oil Co., 387 F.2d 786, 788 (7th Cir. 1967). In view of this deference due the Board's practical exp......
  • Borek Motor Sales, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 17325.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 8, 1970
    ...to the National Labor Relations Board as well as other agencies of the Government. National Labor Relations Board v. Process Corporation, 412 F.2d 215, 217 (7th Cir. 1969); American President Lines, Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 F.2d 490, 492 (9th Cir. 1965); Division 1142 v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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