NLRB v. Southern Paper Box Company
| Citation | 473 F.2d 208 |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1159.,72-1159. |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SOUTHERN PAPER BOX COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Roger C. Hartley, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Gaines N. Houston, Little Rock, Ark., for respondents.
Before MATTHES, Chief Judge, and GIBSON and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board petitions this Court for enforcement of its order requiring the Southern Paper Box Company to bargain with the United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO. The Board's decision and order are reported at 193 N.L.R.B. No. 134, 78 L.R.R.M. 1464 (1971).
On April 9, 1971, the Union won a Board-conducted consent election by an eighty-three to seventy-two vote. Thereafter, Southern filed six objections to conduct which it contended affected the results of the election. It claimed, in substance, that misrepresentations and threats by Union representatives and adherents interfered with the employees' free choice.
The Regional Director of the Board conducted an administrative investigation of Southern's objections and afforded the parties an opportunity to submit evidence. He found the objections to be without merit and certified the Union as the bargaining agent of the employees.
Southern filed a request for review with the Board, asking that the certification be set aside and a new election ordered, or that a post-election hearing be ordered to resolve issues raised by Southern's objections. On July 13, 1971, the Board affirmed the Regional Director's decision, and denied Southern's request for review on the ground that no substantial issues warranting review had been raised.
Thereafter, the Union requested Southern to bargain. It refused. The Union then filed unfair labor practice charges. The Board issued a complaint alleging a refusal to bargain in violation of §§ 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (5). Southern contended that it was justified in its refusal because the certification was invalid for the reasons urged in its objections to the election. The General Counsel moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the issues raised by Southern had been fully litigated and determined adversely to Southern in the representation case. The Board granted the motion for summary judgment and found a refusal to bargain. This proceeding followed.
Southern argues on appeal: (1) that the Board erred in failing to grant a hearing on Southern's objections to the election, and (2) that the certification of the Union by the Board is invalid because the election should have been set aside on the basis of Southern's objections to the election.
For convenience and clarity, we first consider Southern's objections I, III, IV and V. The substance of these objections is that Union representatives visited employees' homes before the election and materially misrepresented wage rates and benefits purportedly obtained by the Union in labor agreements with other companies in Arkansas and Texas, that Union officials misrepresented the amounts of strike benefits that would be paid to employees if they went on strike, and that Union representatives led female employees to believe that they could continue to work until age sixty-five if the Union won the election. The Board interviewed witnesses with respect to each of these objections and summarized the testimony that it obtained from them. It first concluded that the various statements did not raise substantial and material factual issues which necessitated a hearing. It then held that the statements did not involve a substantial departure from the truth, that Southern had an opportunity to reply to the statements and that most of the statements were capable of evaluation by employees.
We agree with the Board that the statements of the various witnesses did not raise substantial and material factual issues which necessitated a hearing. We also believe that there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Board's finding that the election should not be set aside because of any of the matters alleged in these objections. In reaching this decision, we apply the same standard that we applied in National Labor Relations Board v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, 8th Cir., 473 F.2d 206, decided this date. We there held that an election would be set aside because of misleading campaign propaganda:
"* * * only where there has been a misrepresentation or other similar campaign trickery, which involves a substantial departure from the truth, at a time which prevents the other party * * * from making an effective reply, so that the misrepresentation, whether deliberate or not, may reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on an election. * * *" (Footnote omitted.)
Hollywood Ceramics Co., 140 N.L.R.B. No. 36, 51 L.R.R.M. 1600, 1601 (1962)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
... ... P 55,233 ... J. R. NORTON COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, ... AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent; ... comparable to those exercised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), as the agency in charge of the Act's implementation and administration ... N.L.R.B. (9th Cir. 1971) supra, 443 F.2d 1334; N.L.R.B. v. Southern Paper Box Company (8th Cir. 1973) 473 F.2d 208.) While, as the Board has ... ...
-
LaCrescent Constant Care Center, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...has approved the Hollywood Ceramics standard. NLRB v. Modine Mfg. Co., 500 F.2d 914, 915--16 (8th Cir. 1974); NLRB v. Southern Paper Box Co., 473 F.2d 208, 210 (8th Cir. 1973); NLRB v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 473 F.2d 206, 208 (8th Cir. 1973); see NLRB v. Skelly Oil Co., 473 F.2d 1079, 1083 ......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Monark Boat Co.
...conclusion." Bauer Welding and Metal Fabricators, 676 F.2d 314, 318 (8th Cir.1982) (footnote omitted). See also NLRB v. Southern Paper Box Co., 473 F.2d 208, 211 (8th Cir.1973). The history of Beaird-Poulan Division, Emerson Electric Co. v. NLRB, 571 F.2d 432 (8th Cir.1978), order enforced ......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Payless Cashway Lumber Store of South St. Paul, Inc., 74-1289
...facts than that the remarks created an atmosphere in which a free expression of choice was impossible. See N.L.R.B. v. Southern Paper Box Co., 473 F.2d 208, 211 (8th Cir. 1973); cf., N.L.R.B. v. Griffith Oldsmobile, Inc., 455 F.2d 867, 870-871 (8th Cir. 1972). We, therefore, refuse to enfor......