Opinion ID: 392983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Election Violations Alleged by Klingler and the

Text: Standard of Judicial Review 26 Our enforcement of the Board's order requiring Klingler to bargain with the Union is dependent upon the validity of the Board's earlier decision certifying the Union after the election of June 30, 1978. Osborn Transportation, 589 F.2d at 1278 n.4; Golden Age Beverage, 415 F.2d at 28. 27 Klingler raises three factors as a basis for invalidating the election and, therefore, for denying enforcement to the Board's order: 28 1) that the leadpersons were supervisory employees whose participation in the election on behalf of the Union tainted the election process; 29 2) that certain actions of the Board's representative in conducting the election influenced the election results; and 30 3) that Union payments to employees who had given up a day's work in order to testify on behalf of the Union at the pre-election representation hearing exerted improper influence on employee votes. 31 Our standard of review is based upon the recognition that Congress has entrusted broad discretion to the Board to conduct and supervise employee elections. The specialized functions of the Board, such as classification of employees and the identification of an unacceptable degree of interference with free choice in union elections, require a quality and degree of expertise uniquely within the domain of the Board. If the Board's decision is reasonable and based on substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole, our inquiry is at an end. Claxton Manufacturing, 613 F.2d at 1365-66; Dobbs House, 613 F.2d at 1256; Osborn Transportation, 589 F.2d at 1279-80. 32 In order to gain the right to a new election, Klingler has the entire burden of 1) offering specific evidence of specific events from or about specific people, and 2) showing that these objectionable activities, when considered as a whole, either tended to or did influence the outcome of the election. Claxton Manufacturing, 613 F.2d at 1366. The latter showing is especially difficult where, as in Klingler's election, the union won by a wide margin. NLRB v. Sumter Plywood Corp., 535 F.2d 917, 924 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1092, 97 S.Ct. 1105, 51 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977). 33 But Klingler must first pass the hurdle of earning a hearing on these issues. If the Board assumes the truth of all the specific allegations raised by Klingler, but still finds these facts inadequate to influence the outcome of the election, no hearing is required. Singleton Packing, 418 F.2d at 280. Conversely, if the facts alleged are adequate for that purpose, factual questions may not be resolved against the employer without a hearing. Claxton Manufacturing, 613 F.2d at 1366-67.