Sahara-Tahoe Corp. v. N.L.R.B., SAHARA-TAHOE
| Decision Date | 29 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | SAHARA-TAHOE,No. 75-2036,75-2036 |
| Citation | 533 F.2d 1125 |
| Parties | 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2176, 78 Lab.Cas. P 11,380 CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Everett F. Meiners (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.
Paul J. Spielberg (argued), NLRB, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Before TRASK and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and EAST, * District Judge.
This is a petition to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board which followed findings on two unfair labor practices on the part of the management of a hotel. We enforce the order in part and deny enforcement in part.
The alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act § 8(a)(1) and (3), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (3) (1970), consisted in the discharge of Audrey J. Hewitt, an employee, because of her activities on behalf of a labor union. We have reviewed the evidence and have concluded that the findings of the administrative law judge, which were ratified by the Board, are supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. The remedy provided in the Board's order (reinstatement and other relief) is correct as a matter of law, and the order in this respect is entitled to be enforced.
The alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1) in the unlawful and coercive interrogation of waitress Bernice Eggerman is not supported by evidence. The evidence was that a supervisory employee asked Ms. Eggerman if she was "going to join the union." The efforts of the union and the general counsel to build this relatively innocuous question into an unfair labor practice falls short of proof of the necessary coercive atmosphere to make this a violation. Some anxiety may have followed in the wake of the firing of the union organizer, Ms. Hewitt, but the conversation with Ms. Eggerman preceded the Hewitt discharge. The findings of fact indicate that the Eggerman episode occurred "early in July" and the Hewitt episode occurred July 27, 1974. The record reveals no coercive behavior on the part of the management prior to or contemporaneous with that conversation. Ms. Eggerman, who testified about the conversation, as did other witnesses, expressed no awareness of anti-union pressure from management. Counsel had every opportunity to bring out evidence of coercion if it existed.
The Board will present a form of order providing appropriate relief to Ms. Hewitt and omitting reference to the alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carian v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...them by the ALRA. (§ 1153, subsec. (a); N.L.R.B. v. Monroe Tube Co., Inc. (2d Cir.1976) 545 F.2d 1320, 1328; Sahara-Tahoe Corp. v. N.L.R.B. (9th Cir.1976) 533 F.2d 1125, 1126; see Belridge Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 551, 559, 147 Cal.Rptr. 165, 580 P.2d 665; ......
-
Harry Carian Sales v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...conduct did reasonably tend to coerce. (See N.L.R.B. v. Monroe Tube Co., Inc., supra, 545 F.2d 1320, 1328; Sahara-Tahoe Corp. v. N.L.R.B. (9th Cir.1976) 533 F.2d 1125, 1126.) In this instance, petitioner's use of an unexplained confidentiality clause intimidated workers to such an extent th......
-
Karahadian Ranches, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...of all the surrounding circumstances. (N.L.R.B. v. Monroe Tube Co., Inc. (2d Cir.1976) 545 F.2d 1320, 1328; Sahara-Tahoe Corp. v. N.L.R.B. (9th Cir.1976) 533 F.2d 1125, 1126; Stanislaus Imports, Inc. (1976) 226 NLRB 1190, 1192.) One important factor to be considered is whether there is any ......