Opinion ID: 1503025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Separate Intervener Contentions.

Text: The intervener, Association, argues two particular matters not yet considered. One of these is that the intervener was denied a fair hearing in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The other is that the Board erred in dismissal of intervener's petition for investigation and certification of bargaining representatives (meaning the Association). As to fair hearing. The basis of this contention is not that the examiner, who heard the evidence, acted unfairly to the prejudice of substantial rights of intervener. As matter of fact, the examiner was commendably fair and impartial. The contention is that The Board did not form an opinion based upon all of the testimony, as required by Section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(c), which opinion was a basic condition precedent to making of findings and issuance of an order. While we do not sustain some of the findings and conclusions of the Board, because of insufficiency of evidence, yet we are unable to conclude that the Board did not consider all of the evidence or reached its findings and conclusions in conscious disregard of the evidence. As to dismissal of intervener's petition. The day prior to the hearings before the examiner, intervener filed with the regional director a motion for leave to intervene in this proceeding and its proposed petition in intervention. Among other things, the intervening petition set forth that a question had arisen as to the bargaining agent for the employees of petitioner and, therefore, it prayed the holding of an election to determine that matter and, to accomplish said purpose, attached to the petition a Petition for Investigation and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 159(c), wherein the intervener claimed to be a labor organization and to have a majority of the employees of petitioner and asked recognition as the sole bargaining agency for all employees except those in supervisory positions. The director allowed intervention and participation in the hearing    insofar as its interest may appear but ordered that no action be taken at this time on the Petition for Investigation and Certification for four reasons set out. [15] After the hearings had continued several days, intervener called the Petition for Investigation and the ruling of the regional director to the attention of the examiner. The examiner declined to consider the matter as being outside his jurisdiction because of Section 19 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the Board  Series 1 as amended  which provided that the regional director should rule on all motions filed prior to hearing. In its Decision and Order, the Board affirmed the ruling of the regional director and, further on in the order, dismissed the Petition for Investigation. The contentions of intervener are that the dismissal deprives its members of the benefits of Section 9(c) of the Act; that it denies them the privilege of selecting, in the manner prescribed in the act, a representative of their own choosing and prevented them from demonstrating to the Board that intervener is without doubt the chosen representative of the great majority of the employees of the company. This Petition for Investigation came into this proceeding which was based upon a complaint in which the major charge was that intervener was a company formed, supported and dominated organization. Although the Board had power to do otherwise, it is no just ground for criticism that it preferred to await the outcome of the proceeding  the determination whether the charge as to the company character of the Association was determined  before it ruled upon the Petition for Investigation. No proper rights of the members of intervener were contravened. It may well have served the public purpose of the Act for the Board to proceed as it did. When the unfair practices, covered by the complaint, were determined, the Board ruled the Petition for Investigation. In view of the conclusion reached by the Board that the Association was an improper bargaining agency, it would naturally follow that it would dismiss the petition of the Association which sought to have itself declared the exclusive bargaining agency. See National Labor Relations Board v. Falk Corporation, 308 U.S. 453, 60 S.Ct. 307, 84 L.Ed. ___.