Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal in suits against management, for union, individual worker, or government in suit against management; in government enforcement of labor laws, for the federal government or the validity of federal regulations; in Executive branch vs union or workers, for executive branch; in worker vs union (non-civil rights), for union; in conflicts between rival union, for union which opposed by management and "not ascertained" if neither union supported by management or if unclear; in injured workers or consumers vs management, against management; in other labor issues, for economic underdog if no civil rights issue is present; for support of person claiming denial of civil rights. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION OF REHEARING EN BANC.
On petition for rehearing, .the respondent brings to our attention that although thirteen ballots were challenged, only twelve challenges were sustained. The Board did not resolve the challenge to the remaining ballot because it would not have affected the outcome of the election. However, because the court did not reach the question of whether the Board properly excluded the ballots of Paul Paradiso and Donald Kloss, the unresolved challenge does become significant. If this ballot and those of Paul Paradiso and Donald Kloss are counted, the election result would stand at 35 votes for the Union and 35 votes against the Union. The Union would thus have failed to achieve majority status, and the Board’s order to bargain would be improper. The NLRB, in its answer to the respondent’s petition, contends that the Board correctly excluded the ballots of Paul Paradiso and Donald Kloss.
We noted that the Board failed to decide whether Paul Paradiso and Donald Kloss resided at home or were economically dependent on their fathers. An absence of a finding on this factor is not dispositive, however, if, on balance, the other factors set forth in Caravelle I support a factual determination that these relatives do not share a community of interest with their fellow employees. In this regard, the Board concluded that:
the interests of the Paradiso wives and children were closely allied to those of the Company which was principally owned, controlled, managed, and supervised by members of the Paradiso family. Similarly, we conclude that the interests of Donald W. Kloss were closely linked to those of his father, a supervisor, shareholder, and director who took an active part in management affairs.
These conclusions are supported by the record and satisfy the requirements of Caravelle I. Accordingly, the Board properly excluded the votes of Paul Paradiso and Donald Kloss. We therefore need not remand for Board resolution of the challenge to the final ballot, and we affirm our prior decision to enforce the Board’s order.
No judge in regular active service having requested that a vote be taken on the suggestion for an en banc rehearing, the same is hereby denied.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: B