National Labor Relations Board v. South Bay Daily Breeze

(dissenting in part):

I agree with the majority that that part of the Board’s decision finding unfair labor practices by reason of interference with the election should be affirmed. However, that part ordering respondent to bargain should be reversed and a new election ordered.

The union obtained fifteen signed authorization cards over the weekend of April 23-25, 1965. At the hearing before the trial examiner, the respondent questioned seven of those cards. The trial examiner determined that fourteen of the cards were valid. Using this number and the size of the unit, the trial examiner concluded that the union had a majority on April 26, 1965, and thus that the respondent could be ordered to bargain with the union. On review the respondent questions the determination of the trial examiner made with regard to five of the employees.

The trial examiner apparently followed the “only” rule established in the Sixth Circuit. NLRB v. Cumberland Shoe Corp., 351 F.2d 917 . Under that rule it was held that an authorization card is valid to show representation unless the employer can show that solicitors represented to the employee that the “sole” or “only” purpose in signing the card was…

This case is before us pursuant to section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e) (1964), which authorizes our review of orders issued by the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has petitioned for enforcement against the respondent, South Bay Daily Breeze, of an order issued on October 12, 1966, and reported (along with the Board’s decision) at 160 N.L.R.B. 1850 (1966).

Respondent publishes a daily newspaper in Torrance, California. In April, 1965, an international representative of the American Newspaper Guild met with three employees of respondent and discussed with them the advantages of Guild representation. An organizing campaign followed. Fifteen signed authorization cards were soon obtained, and the international representative sent a telegram to respondent, requesting recognition as the bargaining agent of respondent’s editorial employees. Estimates regarding the size of the appropriate bargaining unit at that time ranged from twenty-two to twenty-eight employees, and respondent’s publisher, Robert Curry, expressing doubt that the Guild represented a majority of the em *362 ployees in the unit, refused to grant such recognition. A National…

415 F.2d 360 72 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2081 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE, Respondent. No. 21949. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Aug. 1, 1969, Rehearing Denied Sept. 19, 1969. Lawrence Joseph (argued), Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Lawrence M. Joseph, J. Richard Thesing, Attys., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. O'Melveny & Myers (argued), Charles G. Bakaly, Jr., Peter M. Anderson, Stanley H. Williams, Brundage & Hackler, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Before BARNES and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, * Senior District Judge. BARNES, Circuit Judge: 1 This case is before us pursuant to section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(e) (1964), which authorizes our review of orders issued by the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has petitioned for enforcement against the respondent, South Bay Daily Breeze, of an order issued on October 12, 1966, and reported (along with the Board's decision) at 160 N.L.R.B. 1850 (1966). 2 Respondent publishes a daily newspaper in Torrance, California. In April, 1965, an…