Opinion ID: 595945
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantial Unfair Labor Practices Justify Issuance of Bargaining Order.

Text: 24 New Life contends that the Board's factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Following the issuance of the Board's decision and order in this matter on January 29, 1991, New Life entered into a settlement agreement on May 1, 1991 with respect to the alleged violation of section 8(a)(1) and section 8(a)(3). Pursuant to this settlement the Board seeks enforcement only of its order with respect to New Life's refusal to bargain collectively in violation of section 8(a)(5). In its opening brief, New Life asserts that [o]nly the Board's finding of a section 8(a)(5) on the part of New Life, and its imposed bargaining order to remedy said violation is before this court for judicial review. Petitioner's Opening Brief at II. The Board agreed that New Life had fully complied with its decision and order with respect to compliance with Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3). Accordingly, New Life has waived its right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Board's findings regarding the alleged violations of section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3). NLRB v. Nexis Industries, Inc. 647 F.2d 905, 908 (9th Cir.1981). Our task then is to determine whether New Life's conduct, as found by the Board, was sufficiently serious to warrant the imposition of a bargaining order. 25 The Board found that New Life engaged in unfair practices (1) by laying off seven employees after the union filed an election petition and requested bargaining; (2) by soliciting grievances and threatening to close down the plant to avoid unionization; (3) by threatening to fire 23 employees if they responded to a subpoena to appear at a Board hearing; (4) by provoking violent incidents on the picket line. These findings are binding on us as law of the case because New Life did not challenge them on appeal. Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 209 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir.1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 949 (1954). 26 We review the Board's determination that a bargaining order should issue for abuse of discretion. Peninsula Ass'n, 627 F.2d 202, 204 (9th Cir.1980). Because the Board possesses specialized knowledge and expertise, we must accord special respect to its estimates of the effects of the unfair labor practices on the election process, and to its choice of remedies. NLRB v. Carilli, 648 F.2d 1206, 1216-17 (9th Cir.1981). Although the justification for a bargaining order is a matter peculiarly committed to the discretion of the NLRB, Pay'n Save Corp. v. NLRB, 641 F.2d 697, 703 (9th Cir.1981), we must serve as more than a rubber stamp for the Board's decisions. NLRB v. Chatfield-Anderson Co., 606 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.1979). 27 In Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, the Supreme Court held that a bargaining order was appropriate where (1) the union once held a card majority; (2) the employer committed serious unfair labor practices which, although less outrageous and pervasive than those which would independently justify a bargaining order, tend to undermine the union's majority and impede the election processes; and (3) the likelihood of erasing the effects of the unfair practices and obtaining a fair election by the use of traditional remedies is slight. Id. at 614; NLRB v. Peninsula Ass'n for Retarded Children and Adults, 627 F.2d 202, 204 (9th Cir.1980). 28 New Life's unfair labor practices support the issuance of a bargaining order. New Life management threatened to close the plant if the Union was successful in the election. See NLRB v. Gissell Packing Co., 395 U.S. at 618-19 (upholding issuance of a bargaining order where the employer threatened to close the plant in the event of unionization). New Life management laid off, suspended, and attacked employees. The employer's plant manager physically attacked the union business agent without provocation, on a second occasion physically attacked and severely beat a peaceful picketer, and on a third violent occasion, eight or nine management people rescued others who were encircled by picketers in a fight which escalated to use of a knife. Moreover, New Life refused to reinstate a striking worker. New Life presented no evidence to indicate that the effect of the threats and other actions had been mitigated in any manner. Cf. Chatfield-Anderson, 606 F.2d at 269 (holding that no bargaining order should issue where serious threats made by management were specifically disavowed by the company president before the election was held). Under these circumstances the Board did not abuse its discretion in issuing a bargaining order because of New Life's substantial unfair labor practices. See NLRB v. Gissell Packing Co., 395 U.S. at 614 ... (a bargaining order is appropriate where the employer has engaged in substantial unfair labor practices). 29