Summa Corp. v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 79-7324

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore HUG and FERGUSON; HUG
Citation625 F.2d 293
Parties105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2364, 89 Lab.Cas. P 12,204 SUMMA CORPORATION d/b/a Frontier Hotel, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Decision Date12 August 1980
Docket Number79-7436,Nos. 79-7324

Page 293

625 F.2d 293
105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2364, 89 Lab.Cas. P 12,204
SUMMA CORPORATION d/b/a Frontier Hotel, Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Nos. 79-7324, 79-7436.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 2, 1980.
Decided Aug. 12, 1980.

Page 294

William F. Spalding, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for petitioner; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.

J. Keith Gorham, Janet C. McCaa, Washington, D. C., for N. L. R. B.

Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of Order of National Labor Relations Board.

Before HUG and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges, and EAST *, Senior District Judge.

HUG, Circuit Judge:

The National Labor Relations Board found that Summa Corporation d/b/a Frontier Hotel, unlawfully refused to bargain with Teamsters Local 14, in violation of section 8(a)(1) & (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1) & (5). Summa admits its refusal to bargain but challenges the validity of the representation election through which the Union was certified as exclusive bargaining agent. The Board overruled all of Summa's objections to the election; a hearing was held on only one of the objections.

Summa petitions this court for review of the Board's order directing Summa to bargain with the Union, and the Board cross-applies for enforcement of its order. We grant the petition for review and deny enforcement of the Board's order.

I

Summa and the Union entered into a written stipulation authorizing a consent election to determine whether the Union should be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent for certain casino employees working at Summa's facility in Las Vegas. 1 The Union won the representation election by a vote of 120 to 94.

Summa filed objections to the election, alleging that the Union had engaged in material misrepresentations during the election campaign, and that the Board agent conducting the election had allowed Union observers and supporters to engage in misconduct during the voting period, tending to destroy the laboratory conditions necessary for a fair election. Principal among Summa's claims of election misconduct is its allegation that the Board agent improperly allowed the Union to employ a greater number of observers than Summa employed, in breach of the parties' agreement in the election stipulation that an equal number of observers would be allowed for each party.

On the recommendation of the Regional Director, the Board ordered a limited hearing on Summa's allegation that Union observers had engaged in prolonged conversations with prospective voters in violation of the Board's rule set forth in Milchem, Inc., 170 N.L.R.B. 362 (1968). The Board overruled all the other objections without a hearing. After a hearing on the objection relating to the Milchem rule, the Board overruled that objection and certified the Union as exclusive bargaining agent.

Summa refused to bargain with the Union, and the Union charged Summa with violating section 8(a)(1) & (5) of the Act. Noting that Summa's election objections had been litigated in the previous proceedings, the Board granted summary judgment for the Union and ordered Summa to bargain with the Union.

II

We will enforce the Board's order if the Board correctly applied the law and if

Page 295

its findings of fact are supported by the record as a whole. NLRB v. Metro-Truck Body, Inc., 613 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 100 S.Ct. 2987, 65 L.Ed.2d ---- (1980). Specifically, we will enforce the Board's bargaining order if the Board properly overruled Summa's objections to the election. See...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • N.L.R.B. v. Best Products Co., Inc., No. 84-7645
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 10 Julio 1985
    ...& Co., Inc., 244 NLRB 407, 454 (1979) In that respect, the case at bar is readily distinguishable from Summa Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 625 F.2d 293 (9th Cir.1980), which Best contends is "controlling." Had there been an agreement here to limit the number of observers to one per side ......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Lorimar Productions, Inc., Nos. 84-7531
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 17 Septiembre 1985
    ...Cir.1979). An election will be set aside if the election process is "significantly impaired" by the defect. Summa Corp. v. NLRB, 625 F.2d 293, 295 (9th Cir.1980) (quoting NLRB v. Health Tec Division/San Francisco, 566 F.2d 1367, 1372 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 832, 99 S.Ct......
  • St. Elizabeth Community Hosp. v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 22 Junio 1983
    ...and ballot challenges. The Board has broad discretion in conducting and supervising representation elections. Summa Corp. v. NLRB, 625 F.2d 293 (9th Cir.1980); Coronet-Western v. NLRB, 518 F.2d 31, 32 (9th Cir.1975). A hearing is not required in every case to determine the validity of objec......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Michigan Rubber Products, Inc., No. 83-5313
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 20 Junio 1984
    ...of Michigan, sitting by designation. 1 Reported at 251 N.L.R.B. 74, 105 L.R.R.M. 1056 (1980). 2 Respondent cites Summa Corp. v. NLRB, 625 F.2d 293 (9th Cir.1980), in which the court refused to enforce a bargaining order because the union had been allowed one more observer than the 3 Athbro ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • N.L.R.B. v. Best Products Co., Inc., No. 84-7645
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 10 Julio 1985
    ...& Co., Inc., 244 NLRB 407, 454 (1979) In that respect, the case at bar is readily distinguishable from Summa Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 625 F.2d 293 (9th Cir.1980), which Best contends is "controlling." Had there been an agreement here to limit the number of observers to one per side ......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Lorimar Productions, Inc., Nos. 84-7531
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 17 Septiembre 1985
    ...Cir.1979). An election will be set aside if the election process is "significantly impaired" by the defect. Summa Corp. v. NLRB, 625 F.2d 293, 295 (9th Cir.1980) (quoting NLRB v. Health Tec Division/San Francisco, 566 F.2d 1367, 1372 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 832, 99 S.Ct......
  • St. Elizabeth Community Hosp. v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 22 Junio 1983
    ...and ballot challenges. The Board has broad discretion in conducting and supervising representation elections. Summa Corp. v. NLRB, 625 F.2d 293 (9th Cir.1980); Coronet-Western v. NLRB, 518 F.2d 31, 32 (9th Cir.1975). A hearing is not required in every case to determine the validity of objec......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Michigan Rubber Products, Inc., No. 83-5313
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 20 Junio 1984
    ...of Michigan, sitting by designation. 1 Reported at 251 N.L.R.B. 74, 105 L.R.R.M. 1056 (1980). 2 Respondent cites Summa Corp. v. NLRB, 625 F.2d 293 (9th Cir.1980), in which the court refused to enforce a bargaining order because the union had been allowed one more observer than the 3 Athbro ......
  • 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