Bell Foundry Company, Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner

827 F.2d 1340 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2705 , 56 USLW 2279 , 107 Lab.Cas. P 10,170 BELL FOUNDRY COMPANY, Petitioner/cross-respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/cross-petitioner. Nos. 86-7118, 86-7155. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 7, 1987. Decided Sept. 15, 1987. James G. Johnson and Susan L. Schwartz, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner/cross-respondent. Kenneth B. Hipp, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., for respondent/cross-petitioner. Petition for Review from a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before KENNEDY and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and LOVELL, * District Judge. POOLE, Circuit Judge: 1 After a landslide victory of the Teamsters Local 848 in a Stipulated Certification upon Consent Election, Bell Foundry Company (Bell, the Company) refused to bargain, claiming that the Union had been improperly certified because of alleged election improprieties. The National Labor Relations Board certified the Union as the collective bargaining representative of Bell's employees. Bell petitions for review, and the Board cross-petitions for enforcement of its order. We agree with the Board that the…

After a landslide victory of the Teamsters Local 848 in a Stipulated Certification upon Consent Election, Bell Foundry Company (Bell, the Company) refused to bargain, claiming that the Union had been improperly certified because of alleged *1342 election improprieties. The National Labor Relations Board certified the Union as the collective bargaining representative of Bell’s employees. Bell petitions for review, and the Board cross-petitions for enforcement of its order. We agree with the Board that the Company is in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Labor Management Relations Act (the Act) in its refusal to bargain with the Union, and that the order of the Board should be enforced.

FACTS

Bell operates a foundry in South Gate, California, and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of section 2 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152 . In September 1981, Wholesale Delivery Drivers & Salesmen Local 848 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-housemen & Helpers of America (the Union) filed a representation petition with the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking certification as the collective bargaining…

concurring:

I concur in the judgment, with one observation. The goal of an organizing campaign, achieved through free and vigorous debate, is to make an informed choice possible for employees. See Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53, 62 , 86 S.Ct. 657, 663 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966); NLRB v. Lenkurt Elec. Co., 438 F.2d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir.1978). Given this goal, it is somewhat odd to require employees to sign authorization cards before hearing the Union’s pitch. The company, however, argues only that the principles of NLRB v. Savair Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 270 , 94 S.Ct. 495 , 38 L.Ed.2d 495 (1973), have been violated, and that is not the case.

concurring:

I concur in the result reached by Judge Poole, and I agree with Judge Kennedy’s opinion. However, our opinions ought not be read to endorse the NLRB’s review procedures, which are inherently suspect.

On three separate occasions in three different cases during a recent three year period this court expressed its disagreement with the NLRB’s review procedures.

First, in NLRB v. Consolidated Liberty, Inc., 672 F.2d 788, 789 (9th Cir.1982), the Board’s failure to review the entire record before the Regional Director was held to lead to “rubber stamp” review raising serious due process problems. Next, in NLRB v. Advanced Systems, Inc., 681 F.2d 570, 573-74 (9th Cir.1982), we held that the Regional Director must transmit, as part of the record, any materials he relied on in his report, regardless of the source. Most recently, in West Coast Liquidators, Inc., 725 F.2d 532 (9th Cir.1984) this court, reviewing the Board’s revised rule, held that it was error for the Board to fail to review the entire record relied upon by the Regional Director, but that the court will not deny enforcement and order remand where the error is harmless. That decision reaffirmed the principle…