National Labor Relations Board v. Lorimar Productions, Inc., Lorimar Productions, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

The National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter the Board) applies for enforcement of its order requiring that Lorimar Productions, Inc. (hereinafter Lorimar) bargain with Production Office Coordinators and Accountants Guild Local 717, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada (hereinafter the union). Lorimar cross-petitions for review, contending that its refusal to bargain was justified because (1) the Board certified an inappropriate bargaining unit; (2) the Regional Director conducted the representation election pursuant to an official notice that incorrectly defined the bargaining unit; (3) the Board abused its discretion by failing to afford Lorimar an evidentiary hearing on its objections to the conduct of the election; (4) the Board abused its discretion by extending the union’s certification in its remedial order; (5) the union failed to make a clear and proper demand for bargaining; and (6) Lorimar had a good faith doubt regarding the union’s majority status.

We deny Lorimar’s cross-petition insofar as it asserts that the Board certified an inappropriate unit. Because the Board’s election…

dissenting.

I dissent from Part III of the majority opinion, which invalidates the representation election because the Board, having granted a request for review of the unit determination before the election, failed to require two ballots from each voter.

As the majority correctly notes, courts have held consistently that the Board has broad discretion to establish procedures and safeguards necessary to conduct representation elections. NLRB v. WymanGordon, Co., 394 U.S. 759, 767 , 89 S.Ct. 1426, 1430 , 22 L.Ed.2d 709 (1969); NLRB v. A. J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 330 , 67 S.Ct. 324, 327 , 91 L.Ed. 322 (1946); NLRB v. Berryfast, Inc., 741 F.2d 1161, 1163 (9th Cir.1984); Summa Corp. v. NLRB, 625 F.2d 293, 295 (9th Cir.1980). Our review of Board supervision of election proceedings is limited, NLRB v. Metro-Truck Body, Inc., 613 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir.1979), and we may set aside an election only if the election process is “significantly impaired.” Summa Corp., 625 F.2d at 295 (quoting NLRB v. Heath Tec Division/San Francisco, 566 F.2d 1367, 1372 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 832 , 99 S.Ct. 110 , 58 L.Ed.2d 127 (1978)). Because I cannot conclude that the Board abused its…

771 F.2d 1294 120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2425 , 103 Lab.Cas. P 11,573 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LORIMAR PRODUCTIONS, INC., Respondent. LORIMAR PRODUCTIONS, INC., Cross-Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Cross-Respondent. Nos. 84-7531, 84-7561. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 6, 1985. Decided Sept. 17, 1985. Elliott Moore, Elinor Hadley Stillman, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Arthur Chinski, Debra P. Granfield, Buchalter, Nemer, Fields, Chrystie & Younger, Helena S. Wise, Geffner & Satzman, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Petition to Review a Decision of the United States National Labor Relations Board. Before PREGERSON, and ALARCON, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, * District Judge. ALARCON, Circuit Judge: 1 The National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter the Board) applies for enforcement of its order requiring that Lorimar Productions, Inc. (hereinafter Lorimar) bargain with Production Office Coordinators and Accountants Guild Local 717, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada (hereinafter the union). Lorimar…