National Labor Relations Board v. Lenkurt Electric Company, Inc.

438 F.2d 1102 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LENKURT ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc., Respondent. No. 24035. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 10, 1971. Rehearing Denied April 2, 1971. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED John D. Burgoyne (argued), Atty., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, John D. Burgoyne, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C.; Roy O. Hoffman, Director, N. L. R. B., San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Max Thelen, Jr. (argued), Frank B. Morgan, of Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, Levy, Deroy, Geffner & Van Bourg, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. 1 Before BROWNING and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR * , District Judge. TAYLOR, District Judge: 2 This case is presently before the Court upon the application of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter "the Board") for enforcement of its order issued on February 19, 1968, against the respondent Lenkurt Electric Company (hereinafter "the Company") pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e). The jurisdiction of the Board and of this…

This case is presently before the Court upon the application of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter “the Board”) for enforcement of its order issued on February 19, 1968, against the respondent Lenkurt Electric Company (hereinafter “the Company”) pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e). The jurisdiction of the Board and of this Court is not in dispute.

The respondent Company is engaged in the design and manufacture of communications equipment for sale in interstate commerce. It maintains a manufacturing plant at San Carlos, California, and employs approximately 3,500 employees at the plant, of whom some 2,800 are represented by various unions. The remaining personnel are primarily supervisory and administrative personnel, engineers and other professional employees, and the employees in Department 83, the Publications Service Department. The employees in Department 83 prepare and publish the printed material which the Company ships with the products it sells.

On August 29, 1966, the Union 1 filed a representation petition with the Board seeking an election for certification as the bargaining representative…

The majority has undertaken to perform a function of the Board: namely, the accommodation of the employees’ right of association and the employer’s right of communication, and, as part of that task, the evaluation of the impact upon employees of particular employer statements in a particular management-labor context. In discharging the Board’s function, moreover, the majority has failed to afford employees the protection from coercive employer-statements mandated by Gissel Packing Co. v. N. L. R. B., 395 U.S. 575, 616-620 , 89 S.Ct. 1918 , 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969).

*1109 Labor Board findings within the Board’s specialized field “carry the authority of an expertness which courts do not possess and therefore must respect.” Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 488 , 71 S.Ct. 456, 465 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). The determination challenged here falls in this category. “ [A] reviewing court must recognize the Board’s competence in the first instance to judge the impact of utterances made in the context of the employer-employee relationship.” Gissel, supra, 395 U.S. at 620 , 89 S.Ct. at 1943 . 1 “[T]he expertise of the Board is particularly relevant to the determination of…