National Labor Relations Board v. L. D. McFarland Company

The National Labor Relations Board (Board), pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151 , et seq. (the Act), petitions for enforcement of its Order, issued on July 28,1975. The Board’s Decision and Order is reported at 219 NLRB 575 (1975) and holds that the respondent L. D. McFarland Company (Company) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with *258 the Union. 1 We are convinced that the Board’s Petition should be granted and that its Order must be enforced.

FACTS

Pursuant to an agreement between the Company and Union, a consent election was held at the Company’s Eugene, Oregon, facility on April 25, 1973. The employees voted 16 to 13 in favor of the Union, with two challenged ballots. 2 The Company thereafter filed two timely objections to the election, alleging that the election was invalid because (1) the Union had improperly induced employees to vote for the Union by offering to waive dues and initiation fees, and (2) the Board agent conducting the election had closed the polls early, thereby denying a potentially eligible employee the opportunity to vote. After an administrative investigation, the…

dissenting:

Since I cannot conscientiously find that the evidence supporting the Board’s majority decision is substantial, I must dissent. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1950); Arizona Public Service Co. v. NLRB, 453 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1971). Rather, I agree with the two dissenting members of the Board that the plain meaning of the *262 Union’s waiver of initiation fees, which was communicated to the company employees four days before the union election, violated the rule of NLRB v. Savair Manufacturing Co., 414 U.S. 270 , 94 S.Ct. 495 , 38 L.Ed.2d 495 (1973).

The three majority Board members’ reading of the waiver by inserting the word “incoming” before “member” is unwarranted. The sentence “There will be no initiation fee for any member presently working in the plant” must be read through the eyes of the employees of the company who were the targets of the waiver. It seems only natural to me that they concluded that they must be presently working there and be members of the union — prior to the election, not afterwards. I believe the minority Board members were entirely correct in their conclusion that the conditional…

572 F.2d 256 98 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2037 , 83 Lab.Cas. P 10,522 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. L. D. McFARLAND COMPANY, Respondent. No. 75-3364. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 27, 1978. Rehearing Denied May 4, 1978. William Stewart (argued), Portland, Or., for petitioner. George J. Tichy (argued), Spokane, Wash., for respondent. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of The National Labor Relations Board. Before ELY and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and HALL, * District Judge. ELY, Circuit Judge: 1 The National Labor Relations Board (Board), pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151 , et seq. (the Act), petitions for enforcement of its Order, issued on July 28, 1975. The Board's Decision and Order is reported at 219 NLRB 575 (1975) and holds that the respondent L. D. McFarland Company (Company) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union. 1 We are convinced that the Board's Petition should be granted and that its Order must be enforced. FACTS 2 Pursuant to an agreement between the Company and Union, a consent election was held at the Company's Eugene, Oregon,…