National Labor Relations Board v. W. R. Ames Company

450 F.2d 1209 78 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2864 , 66 Lab.Cas. P 12,224 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. W. R. AMES COMPANY, Respondent. No. 26750. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Nov. 16, 1971. Warren M. Davison, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel (argued), James P. Hendricks, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C.; Roy O. Hoffman, Director, N.L.R.B., San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Allen W. Teagle (argued), Wesley J. Fastiff, of Littler, Mendelson & Fastiff, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before JERTBERG and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and KELLEHER, * District Judge. JERTBERG, Circuit Judge: 1 The National Labor Relations Board seeks a decree enforcing its order of May 18, 1970, against respondent, W. R. Ames Company, pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 136 , 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 , et seq.). The Board's decision and order are reported in 182 NLRB No. 69 . The alleged unfair labor practices occurred at Fresno, California, where the company is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and installation of sprinkler irrigation systems.…

The National Labor Relations Board seeks a decree enforcing its order of May 18, 1970, against respondent, W. R. Ames Company, pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 136 , 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 , et seq.). The Board’s decision and order are reported in 182 NLRB No. 69 . The alleged unfair labor practices occurred at Fresno, California, where the company is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and installation of sprinkler irrigation systems. The Board’s jurisdiction is uncontested.

The Representation Proceedings.

On January 14, 1969, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 87, filed a petition for a representative election. The company and the union stipulated for certification upon consent election.

On May 23, 1969, the election was conducted among the company’s Fresno maintenance employees including truck drivers and shipping and receiving clerks. Of the twenty-four employees of the company voting in the election, fifteen cast ballots for the Union, seven voted against it, and two ballots were challenged. The company filed timely objections to alleged conduct of the union which the…

(dissenting) :

By regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 102.69 (e), it is provided that where exceptions are taken to the regional director’s report made after investigation of a consent election and “it appears to the Board that such exceptions do not raise substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct or results of the election, the Board may decide the matter forthwith upon the record * *

As the majority opinion points out, the Board here has determined that “even if all the facts alleged in the attachments to the Employer’s exceptions were true, such facts would not warrant setting aside the election.” I find no error in that determination. Implicit in it is a finding that any alleged inconsistencies in union statements made to employees respecting initiation fees and strike benefits were not of such moment as to constitute interference with or inhibition of the free choice of the employees in the selection of their bargaining representative.

I do not see how we can possibly question that finding. Improper inducement does not appear. The employer’s mere recitation of the claimed inconsistencies and inadequacies in the union’s election campaign statements does not at all…