National Labor Relations Board v. National Medical Hospital of Modesto, Inc., D/B/A Doctors Hospital of Modesto

(dissenting).

I find myself in disagreement with the views of the majority of the panel. I would adopt the minority opinion of the Chairman of the Board who expressed himself in dissent with the two member majority of the panel in 210 NLRB 894 (1974).

The dispute began as a representation proceeding in which a consent election was held. The parties agreed that the' eligible voters would include “employees who did not work during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off.” Four votes were east for the Union and four against with one ballot, that of employee Childress, challenged by the Board agent because the voter’s name was not on the eligibility list. Because this ballot was sufficient to affect the result, an ex parte investigation of the challenge was conducted by the Regional Director. 1

The Company promptly sent a letter to the investigating agent setting forth its position and enclosing documentary evidence to support its position. The Company offered “any further information” if desired. Among the documents was a detailed report of a medical examination by a Dr. Baker, which concluded with this statement:

Shortly thereafter a…

*939 OPINION

The reasons for the Board’s order are briefly but adequately stated in its decisions in this unfair labor practice proceeding ( 210 NLRB No. 117 ) and the underlying representation proceeding. They have support in the record and reflect a reasonable interpretation of the statute. See NLRB v. Staiman Bros., 466 F.2d 564, 566 (3rd Cir. 1972); NLRB v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co., 438 F.2d 112, 113 (9th Cir. 1971); Westchester Plastics of Ohio, Inc. v. NLRB, 401 F.2d 903, 908 (6th Cir. 1968); Trailmobile Division Pullman, Inc. v. NLRB, 379 F.2d 419, 423 (5th Cir. 1967).

The Board’s order will be enforced.

528 F.2d 938 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2116 , 79 Lab.Cas. P 11,675 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL MEDICAL HOSPITAL OF MODESTO, INC., d/b/a Doctors Hospital of Modesto, Respondent. No. 74--2636. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Nov. 26, 1975. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Feb. 10, 1976. Marjorie Gofreed (argued), N.L.R.B., San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. James J. Meyers (argued), Littler, Mendelson & Fastiff, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.OPINION Before BROWING and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and SWEIGERT, * District Judge. PER CURIAM. 1 The reasons for the Board's order are briefly but adequately stated in its decisions in this unfair labor practice proceeding ( 210 NLRB No. 117 ) and the underlying representation proceeding. They have support in the record and reflect a reasonable interpretation of the statute. See NLRB v. Staiman Bros., 466 F.2d 564, 566 (3rd Cir. 1972); NLRB v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co., 438 F.2d 112, 113 (9th Cir. 1971); Westchester Plastics of Ohio, Inc. v. NLRB, 401 F.2d 903, 908 (6th Cir. 1968); Trailmobile Division Pullman, Inc. v. NLRB, 379 F.2d 419, 423 (5th Cir. 1967). 2 The Board's order will be…