enforcement of continuity finding denied because of inadequate due process in election procedures
- Fin. Inst. Employees Of Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 752 F.2d 356 (1st Cir. 1984).published(enforcement of continuity finding denied because of inadequate due process in election procedures)
- Fin. Inst. Employees v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 752 F.2d 356 (9th Cir. 1984).published(enforcement of continuity finding denied because of inadequate due process in election procedures)
v.
Bear Archery, Division of Victor Comptometer Corporation
95 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3094, 82 Lab.Cas. P 10,145
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
Local Union No. 1903, of the International Union, UAW, Intervenor,
v.
BEAR ARCHERY, Division of Victor Comptometer Corporation, Respondent.
No. 76-2041.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
May 10, 1977.
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, John Ferguson, Michael Stein, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Douglas C. Dahn, Tolleson, Burgess & Mead, Detroit, Mich., for respondent.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board has petitioned for enforcement of its order finding the Bear Archery Division of the Victor Comptometer Corporation in violation of Section 8(a)(5), (1) of the National Labor Management Relations Act for refusal to bargain with Local 1903 of the United Auto Workers.
The company's employees were represented by an independent union, the Bear Archery Employees' Association, which had been recognized as bargaining agent by the employer but which had not been certified by the Board. On September 10, 1974, a majority of employees voted to affiliate the Association with UAW and it became Local 1903. The company refused to bargain with the UAW, complaining that the affiliation election was not fairly conducted and that it did not comport with minimum due process. Two of the three-member panel of the Board rejected the company's contentions. Member Walther dissented primarily because the election procedures did not provide the employees with an adequate opportunity for reflection and for the presentation of opposing viewpoints.
After consideration of the record, briefs and oral arguments of counsel, we conclude that enforcement of the Board's order should not be granted for reasons stated by Member Walther in his dissenting opinion. Accordingly,
It is therefore ORDERED that the petition for enforcement of the NLRB's order be, and it hereby is, denied.
Honorable Ben C. Green, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation