Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, Intervenor

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is a court case ruling on an employer's refusal to bargain with a union that was certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after an election. The court analyzed the employer's objections to the election and certification process. It found that: 1) The union's inclusion of an NLRB document in campaign materials did not mislead employees or constitute improper support from the NLRB. 2) The union's promises to apply an existing contract to the employees if certified were truthful statements, not improper promises like those sometimes made by employers. 3) The employer was not entitled to a hearing on its objections because there were no material factual disputes, only differences of opinion, so the NLR

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, Intervenor

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views7 pages
    The document is a court case ruling on an employer's refusal to bargain with a union that was certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after an election. The court analyzed the employer's objections to the election and certification process. It found that: 1) The union's inclusion of an NLRB document in campaign materials did not mislead employees or constitute improper support from the NLRB. 2) The union's promises to apply an existing contract to the employees if certified were truthful statements, not improper promises like those sometimes made by employers. 3) The employer was not entitled to a hearing on its objections because there were no material factual disputes, only differences of opinion, so the NLR

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1981-10-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 659 F.2d 127 Docket: 80-1049

    Original Title

    Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc, Intervenor, 659 F.2d 127, 10th Cir. (1981)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document is a court case ruling on an employer's refusal to bargain with a union that was certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after an election. The court analyzed the employer's objections to the election and certification process. It found that: 1) The union's inclusion of an NLRB document in campaign materials did not mislead employees or constitute improper support from the NLRB. 2) The union's promises to apply an existing contract to the employees if certified were truthful statements, not improper promises like those sometimes made by employers. 3) The employer was not entitled to a hearing on its objections because there were no material factual disputes, only differences of opinion, so the NLR

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    12 views7 pages

    Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, Intervenor

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is a court case ruling on an employer's refusal to bargain with a union that was certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after an election. The court analyzed the employer's objections to the election and certification process. It found that: 1) The union's inclusion of an NLRB document in campaign materials did not mislead employees or constitute improper support from the NLRB. 2) The union's promises to apply an existing contract to the employees if certified were truthful statements, not improper promises like those sometimes made by employers. 3) The employer was not entitled to a hearing on its objections because there were no material factual disputes, only differences of opinion, so the NLR

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 7

    659 F.

    2d 127
    108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2224, 92 Lab.Cas. P 12,970

    CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., Petitioner,


    v.
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent,
    United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, Intervenor.
    No. 80-1049.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Tenth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 20, 1980.
    Decided Sept. 1, 1981.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1981.
    Certiorari Denied Jan.11, 1982.
    See 102 S. Ct. 1016.

    Allen W. Teagle, San Francisco, Cal. (Randolph C. Roeder and Floyd J.


    Palmer, San Francisco, Cal., with him on the brief) of Littler, Mendelson,
    Fastiff & Tichy, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
    Catherine Garcia, Washington, D. C. (Howard E. Perlstein, William S.
    Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel,
    Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, and Elliott Moore,
    Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., with her
    on the brief), for respondent.
    John G. Engberg of Peterson, Engberg & Peterson, Minneapolis, Minn.
    (William H. Schmelling, Asst. Gen. Counsel, United Steelworkers of
    America, Chicago, Ill., with him on the brief) for intervenor.
    Before SETH, Chief Judge, McKAY, Circuit Judge, and CHRISTENSEN,
    District Judge.
    McKAY, Circuit Judge.

    Petitioner-employer seeks review, and the National Labor Relations Board


    (Board) cross-petitions for enforcement, of a Board order finding petitioner in

    violation of 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (29
    U.S.C. 158(a)(5), 158(a)(1)) and ordering it to bargain with the union
    certified by the Board as the employees' representative (the Union). That union
    has intervened in this action. Petitioner claims it did not have to bargain with
    the Union because the Union was not properly certified. Petitioner asks that the
    election be set aside or, in the alternative, that the cause be remanded for a
    hearing.
    2

    Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of metal cans. On August 16,
    1978, the Union filed a representation petition for petitioner's Worland,
    Wyoming, plant production and maintenance employees. The Regional
    Director held a hearing, resolved pre-election matters, and ordered an election.
    Petitioner's request for a review of this decision was denied by the Board. The
    Board conducted an election on November 17. Of approximately sixty eligible
    voters, forty-seven voted for the Union, one employee voted for another union,
    and ten employees voted against any union representation.1 Petitioner filed
    sixty objections to the conduct of the election. The Regional Director
    conducted an administrative investigation, overruled the objections, and
    certified the Union. Petitioner requested review by the Board, raising the same
    issues contained in its objections and contending that the Regional Director
    should have directed a hearing on the objections. The Board denied the request
    for review. Petitioner thereafter refused to bargain, insisting that the Union was
    not properly certified. An unfair labor practice charge was filed against
    petitioner for failure to bargain. The Board granted the General Counsel's
    Motion for Summary Judgment against petitioner and ordered petitioner to
    bargain with the Union. The refusal to bargain is admitted by petitioner and
    was resorted to by it as a means of contesting the validity of the Board's
    certification. Thus, the propriety of that certification is the only issue before us.

    Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing can be granted only if it "shows


    by prima facie evidence the existence of substantial and material factual
    disputes which, if resolved in its favor, would require the setting aside of the
    election." NLRB v. Whitney Museum of American Art, 636 F.2d 19, 23 (2d
    Cir. 1980). See NLRB v. Pinkerton's, Inc., 621 F.2d 1322, 1325 (6th Cir. 1980);
    NLRB v. Piggly Wiggly Red River Co., 464 F.2d 106, 108-09 (8th Cir. 1972);
    29 C.F.R. 102.69(d) (1980). "(T)his evidence must consist of more than a
    difference of opinion with the Regional Director's inferences and opinions."
    Melrose-Wakefield Hospital Association v. NLRB, 615 F.2d 563, 571 (1st Cir.
    1980). See NLRB v. Griffith Oldsmobile, Inc., 455 F.2d 867 (8th Cir. 1972).
    Finally, "no hearing is necessary where the Board assumes the truth of the
    party's contentions, and then rules as a matter of law that, assuming the facts
    alleged, the challenged conduct does not warrant setting aside the election."

    NLRB v. Campbell Products Department, 623 F.2d 876, 879 (3d Cir. 1980). In
    such an instance, the Board's conclusion will not be overturned unless it
    amounts to an abuse of discretion. Melrose-Wakefield Hospital Association v.
    NLRB, 615 F.2d 563, 566-67 (1st Cir. 1980).
    4

    Balanced against an objecting party's interest in a hearing is the public policy


    favoring expeditious processing of representation petitions. "This strong public
    interest justifies the Board's practice of conducting administrative
    investigations and resolving election objections ex parte when it appears that
    the factual issues are unlikely to establish that the election was unfair."
    Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. NLRB, 594 F.2d 8, 11 (4th
    Cir. 1979). Ex parte resolution is particularly necessary in the context of
    objections to representation elections because "(e)mployee interest in a union
    can wane quickly as working conditions remain apparently unaffected by the
    union or collective bargaining. When the company is finally ordered to bargain
    with the union some years later, the union may find that it represents only a
    small fraction of the employees." International Union of Electrical Workers v.
    NLRB, 426 F.2d 1243, 1249 (D.C.Cir.1970).

    Petitioner here renews all of its sixty objections but only briefs four of them.2
    First, it claims that by including a copy of a Board document in its campaign
    materials, the Union gave the appearance of having the Board's support.
    Second, it contends that the Union's pre-election promises to employees were
    objectionable. Third, it argues that a Union sign posted near the polling place
    on the day of the election contained erroneous wage statements. Fourth, it
    claims that ballot secrecy was violated by the use of ballots that allegedly
    allowed voters to see other voters' choices.

    61. The Campaign Brochure.


    7

    The Union distributed a four-page brochure during its campaign, page three of
    which consisted of a portion of an NLRB publication. Petitioner contends that
    this juxtaposition offends the following principle:

    8 duplicate a part of the Board's official notice and then to add to it a personal
    To
    partisan message that may be interpreted by the employee as an endorsement by the
    Board of one of the parties to the election, and thus have an impact on the
    employees' freedom of choice is, we think, an undesirable use of Board documents
    designed for another purpose.
    9

    Rebmar, Inc., 173 NLRB 1434 (1968). The Regional Director concluded,
    however, that the challenged brochure "clearly identif(ies) the (Union) as the

    author of the entire handbill," Record, vol. 3, at 323, and thus could not have
    misled employees. See Associated Lerner Shops of America, 207 NLRB 348
    (1973).
    10

    No hearing is required to resolve this issue. No one disputes the contents of the
    brochure the only question relates to the inference to be drawn from the
    brochure. We are not persuaded that the Regional Director's inference amounts
    to an abuse of discretion.

    2. The Pre-election Promises.


    11
    12

    Petitioner claims that the Union engaged in an improper practice by making


    pre-election promises concerning employee benefits which would be conferred
    if the Union prevailed in the election. The source of these promises is a
    collective bargaining agreement (the Master Can Contract) entered into by
    petitioner and the Union covering employees at several of petitioner's plants.
    The Master Can Contract provides that it shall apply to petitioner's other plants,
    like the one in Worland, Wyoming, if and when the Union is certified as the
    collective bargaining agent at those plants. The Union did nothing more than
    explain to petitioner's employees what effect the Master Can Contract would
    have on them.

    13

    There is no claim that the Union misrepresented the Master Can Contract's
    provisions. Rather, petitioner urges that because the Union could make good on
    its promises they had the same distorting effect on the outcome of an election
    as improper employer pre-election promises of benefits. When an employer
    promises to improve working conditions if his employees reject an organizing
    union, the employees' freedom of choice in the election is interfered with and
    the election will be set aside. See Wilkinson Manufacturing Co. v. NLRB, 456
    F.2d 298, 303 (8th Cir. 1972).

    14

    We decline petitioner's invitation to analogize a union's truthful promise to


    enforce an applicable contract to an employer's improper campaign promise of
    benefit if the union is not certified. The concern underlying the ban on most
    employer pre-election promises is absent here.

    15 danger inherent in well-timed increases in benefits is the suggestion of a fist


    The
    inside the velvet glove. Employees are not likely to miss the inference that the
    source of benefits now conferred is also the source from which future benefits must
    flow and which may dry up if it is not obliged.
    16

    NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409, 84 S.Ct. 457, 459, 11

    L.Ed.2d 435 (1964). Here, if the Union were defeated it would have no
    opportunity to retaliate. Furthermore, the Union's promise of benefits under the
    Master Can Contract was not the result of its unilateral power but rather was the
    culmination of prior bargaining with petitioner. Thus, the concern voiced in
    Exchange Parts is simply not transferable to intervenor's promises here.
    17

    There is no factual issue as to the content of the challenged promises, and


    therefore a hearing on this issue is unnecessary.

    3. The Campaign Poster.


    18
    19

    Petitioner alleges that the Union's posting on the day of the election of a poster
    containing the statement "A (Union) Vote Guarantees You $7.49cents Low,
    $10.05cents High Per Hour" materially misrepresented the facts and thus
    violated the standard set down in Hollywood Ceramics Co., 140 NLRB 221
    (1962), and requires that the election be set aside. There is no dispute as to the
    content of the poster.

    20

    Petitioner introduced sworn declarations attesting that there was "no way at all
    that any employee (could) earn a wage of $10.05 per hour" at the Worland
    plant under the Master Can Contract. Record, vol. 3, at 475. The Union
    provided evidence that cost-of-living raises provided for in the Master Can
    Contract brought earnable wages to the level stated on the poster. Petitioner did
    not contest this evidence other than by broad declarations like that quoted
    above. The Regional Director concluded that petitioner "failed to support its
    allegation that the sign displayed by (the Union) on the day of the election
    contained any material misrepresentations." Id. at 328.

    21

    Notwithstanding the sworn declarations, we find that no hearing is necessary to


    resolve this issue. Unsupported statements certainly pale before uncontradicted
    contractual language and it is the contractual language which is determinative
    of whether the challenged poster was misleading. The Regional Director did not
    abuse his discretion in this instance.

    4. Ballot Secrecy.
    22
    23

    Petitioner argues that necessary laboratory conditions of the election were


    destroyed and the secrecy of the ballots interfered with because ballots were
    utilized "through which the markings and the choices made by voters could be
    plainly seen" and that the election was conducted "in a manner that the
    markings and choices made by voters could be plainly seen." Record, vol. 3, at
    298. The prima facie evidence supporting this objection consists of sworn

    affidavits of the plant manager and petitioner's election observer that the voting
    booth was set up close to windows in a bright room on a sunny day and that
    people looked in these windows. It is not asserted that these people could see
    inside the voting booth or that the booth itself was not opaque. Petitioner's
    observer declared: "The ballots were yellow in color and the paper was thin....
    (I)t was possible to see through the ballots to see how people voted and I did
    see through the ballots and did see how at least twenty voters had voted. Other
    people could also have seen it." Record, vol. 3, at 508. There is no indication as
    to where the observer was standing when she observed the twenty ballots or
    even whether the ballots were in the hands of voters when she observed them.
    There is no allegation that employees could be observed while voting. There is
    no evidence that any employee eligible to vote was aware of the asserted
    transparency of the ballots. The Regional Director found that "(T)he ballots
    used in the election were printed on the ordinary NLRB ballot stock." Id. at
    432.
    24

    The possibility that the outcome of an election was affected or that voters were
    intimidated in making their choice in a less than secret atmosphere has led the
    Board to overturn elections in which voting arrangements could have led
    employees to believe they were being observed as they voted. See Royal
    Lumber Co., 118 NLRB 1015 (1957); Gianasca, d/b/a Imperial Reed & Rattan
    Furniture Co., 118 NLRB 911 (1957). But here there is no evidence that
    employees were aware that their votes may not have been secret, and thus it is
    not necessary to set aside the election. See Sewell Plastics, Inc., 241 NLRB 144
    (1979). Again, the petitioner's observer does not indicate when or how she saw
    through the ballots or whether her manner of observation would raise a specter
    of coercion. Indeed, the Regional Director found that "any specific individual
    claiming to have seen the markings on the ballots would have had to make a
    very special effort to do so." Record, vol. 3, at 432. The company observer may
    have made such an effort, but absent evidence that the voters had reason to
    believe that their votes were observable while in their hands, petitioner has
    failed to raise a factual issue requiring a hearing. The Regional Director acted
    within his discretion when he found that the company observer's testimony that
    she saw through twenty ballots did not mean that employees were aware that
    their votes were not secret.

    25

    ENFORCEMENT AND ORDER GRANTED.

    Honorable A. Sherman Christensen of the United States District Court for the
    District of Utah, sitting by designation

    The ballots of 15 additional voters were challenged. The challenged ballots


    largely represent votes of employees whom the employer sought to have
    included in the bargaining unit, but whom the Regional Director found to be
    supervisors, and therefore excluded
    We deem the 56 unbriefed objections to be disposed of by this opinion. They
    merit no more attention than petitioner gave them and suggest a pattern of
    stalling to avoid the clear consequence of a proper election

    You might also like