Mid Am. Media, Inc., Wtrx-Am v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 663 F.2d 17 (6th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Mid Am. Media, Inc., Wtrx-Am v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 663 F.2d 17 (6th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Airport Shuttle-Cincinnati, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 703 F.2d 220 (6th Cir. 1983)
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mid America Media, Inc., WTRX-AM, Petitioner,
v.
National Labor Relations Board, Respondent
80-1357.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Oct 20, 1981.
Published opinion
663 F.2d 17
1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16739
Valerie J. Hoffman, Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Jeffrey K. Ross, Chicago, 111., for petitioner., Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., Bernard Gottfried, Director Region 7, N.L.R.B., Detroit, Mich., Joseph A. Oertel, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Lively, Engel, White.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

ORDER

Mid America Media, Inc., WTRX-AM, petitions this court to review and set aside a decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board reported at 248 NLRB No. 165. The Board found that the petitioner violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by unlawfully refusing to bargain with the certified representative of its employees. The Board has filed a cross-application for enforcement of its order.

At oral argument counsel for the petitioner stated that the real issue in the case is whether the NLRB will be required to follow its own rule that a regional director must hold a hearing on election objections when these objections disclose substantial issues of material fact concerning the validity of a representation election. The rule of the NLRB reflects the standard of this Circuit that a hearing is required only when substantial and material factual issues are raised. NLRB v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., 379 F.2d 172 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 389 U.S. 958, 88 S.Ct. 338, 19 L.Ed.2d 364 (1967).

Upon consideration of the briefs and oral arguments of counsel together with the record on appeal, the court concludes that the objections in the present case did not raise substantial and material factual issues about the validity of the representation election and that a hearing was not required. This being so, the order of the Board should be enforced.

[*18] The petition to review is denied, and the cross-application for enforcement is granted.