National Labor Relations Board v. Heath Tec Division/san Francisco

The National Labor Relations Board petitions this court to enforce its order issued against respondent Heath Tec Division/San Francisco for refusing to bargain with a certified union in violation of §§ 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended 29 U.S.C. §§ 158 (a)(1) and (5). 1 We find the Board’s Decision and Order 2 does not deny respondent administrative due process and is supported by substantial evidence; therefore, we order enforcement.

I

The facts underlying the Board’s findings and conclusions are as follows. After two prior representation elections had been set aside, on April 19, 1974, an election was held in a unit of production and maintenance employees pursuant to stipulations *1369 between Heath Tec and the Union. 3 The election was by secret ballot under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director of the N.L.R.B. for Region 20.

On April 26, 1974, Heath Tec filed twenty-one objections 4 alleging that acts by the Union and third persons interfered with a free and fair election and required the setting aside of the Union’s election victory. On August 21, 1974, following an investigation of the objections and consideration of Heath…

concurring:

I concur in Judge Nielsen’s opinion but reach his part II result by a slightly different route. In my view the Hearing Officer was relieved of any duty to make an inde *1373 pendent evaluation of privilege by Heath Tec’s failure to attempt to meet its eviden-tiary needs without resort to privileged testimony. No showing of testimonial need on the part of Heath Tec having been made, there was nothing against which the Hearing Officer could weigh the importance of preserving the confidentiality of investigative files.

566 F.2d 1367 97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2712 , 83 Lab.Cas. P 10,354 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. HEATH TEC DIVISION/SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent. No. 76-1884. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Jan. 5, 1978. Carol A. De Deo (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Harry Finkle (argued), of Littler, Mendelson & Fastiff, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. 1 Petition for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. 2 Before MERRILL and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and NIELSEN, * District Judge. NIELSEN, District Judge: 3 The National Labor Relations Board petitions this court to enforce its order issued against respondent Heath Tec Division/San Francisco for refusing to bargain with a certified union in violation of §§ 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended 29 U.S.C. §§ 158 (a)(1) and (5). 1 We find the Board's Decision and Order 2 does not deny respondent administrative due process and is supported by substantial evidence; therefore, we order enforcement. 4 * The facts underlying the Board's findings and conclusions are as follows. After two prior representation elections had been set aside, on…