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.

PER CURIAM:
The union in these cases struck against Blue Jeans Corporation, protesting the company’s refusal to bargain. When the dispute came before the National Labor Relations Board, the Board found that the company had failed to bargain in good faith. It ordered the company to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, to bargain collectively with the union upon request, and to post appropriate notices.
On two particular issues, the Board found that the company did bargain in good faith: first, the union’s demands relating to the checkoff of union dues, and second, the demand for a union-conducted time-study or, alternatively, arbitration on piece rates. These two issues are all that remain in these cases. The union seeks a determination by this court that the company’s refusal to concede on these issues constituted failure to bargain in good faith, and it seeks an order compelling the company (1) to grant the checkoff provision and (2) to permit the time-study or agree to binding arbitration on piece rates.
We find substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s decision on both of these issues.
With regard to the checkoff provision, we note that the company’s policy of allowing only essential deductions from the payroll can be traced back ten years.
The union’s demand to be allowed to conduct a time-study is more persuasive initially, but we cannot accept the union’s conclusion that the company’s behavior manifested “an attempt to retain sole and exclusive control over the establishment of wages.” Company and union were agreed on the average hourly wage that the piece rates should yield. The Trial Examiner reasonably concluded that the union’s refusal to examine the time-study records which the company produced, and its failure to request other records which the company was apparently willing to produce, neither tested the company’s good faith nor brought its alleged bad faith into focus.
These considerations, in the particular context of the dispute before us, persuade us that the Board’s decision in these cases must be affirmed. We deny the union’s petition for review, and we enforce the Board’s order as it stands against the company.
. The union does not seriously pursue on appeal its complaint about the company’s refusal to agree to arbitration on wage rates. We note, however, that we see no reason to overturn the Trial Examiner’s conclusion that the company bargained in good faith on this issue.
We further note that even if we agreed with all the union’s contentions with regard to bargaining in good faith, we could not grant precisely the relief it seeks. H. K. Porter Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 397 U.S. 99, 90 S.Ct 821, 25 L.Ed.2d 146 (1970), certainly precludes a Board order requiring that the company agree to the checkoff provision.

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

Answer: A