Opinion ID: 282416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Respondent's Objections to Election Proceedings

Text: 24 In support of respondent's position that the Board should have granted a post-election hearing on its objections filed in the representation proceedings, it urges that the Union's certification was invalid because of interference in the election by the Union, in that the Union: 25 (1) Induced employees to vote for it by promising them 26 (a) back overtime pay alleged due; 27 (b) jobs in Las Vegas, Nevada, or in California; 28 (c) it would prevent respondent from cutting the stage crew to less than its present complement of twelve men. 29 (2) Threatened to blacklist employees and prevent them from obtaining employment elsewhere under Union jurisdiction if they did not vote for the Union; and 30 (3) Waived its rules with respect to taking tests, paying initiation fees and other requirements and issued membership cards in the union to the employees on the condition that they vote for the union. 31 The respondent would have been entitled to a hearing if substantial and material factual issues existed which could be resolved only after a hearing. NLRB v. Bata Shoe Company, Inc., 377 F.2d 821, 825-826 (4 C.A.1967). The court, in the Bata Shoe case, holds that no hearing is required in the absence of substantial and material issues crucial to determination of whether National Labor Relations Board election results are to be accepted for purposes of certification (page 826). In discussing the need for hearing, the court states: 32 A hearing is unnecessary, therefore, where if all the facts contended for by the objecting party `were credited no ground is shown which would warrant setting aside the election.' NLRB v. Air Control Prods. of St. Petersburg, Inc., supra, 335 F.2d [245] 249; accord, NLRB v. Sun Drug Co., supra, 359 F.2d [408] at 414; NLRB v. Wilkening Mfg. Co., 207 F.2d 98, 100 (3d Cir.1953). [Page 826] 33 It appears that the facts contended for by the respondent, if true, would warrant setting aside the election. However, there remains the question of the effect of the affidavits of certain of the stage technicians which refute the majority of the statements attributed to them, as set forth in affidavits offered by respondent of supervisory personnel and Paul E. Jordan, an employee of respondent but not a member of the stage technicians unit. The affidavit, which respondent relies on, set forth alleged statements made by various stage technicians of promises by the Union of benefits which would result to the stage technicians if the Union were voted in, and problems, including that of getting work, if the vote should be unfavorable to the Union. 34 The Regional Director made an ex parte investigation of respondent's objections and reported no evidence in support of the objections other than purported conversations between rank and file employees which were reported to management officials. There was no evidence of alleged promises by named officials or agents of the Union. He concluded the objections did not raise substantial and material issues of fact and recommended the Board overrule them. The Board adopted the recommendations of the Regional Director. 35 Thereafter the Trial Examiner refused respondent's request that the Board produce all affidavits taken by the Regional Director in his investigation of Respondent's objections to the election. The respondent then offered in evidence before the Trial Examiner the affidavits it had given to the Regional Director in support of its objections. The Trial Examiner refused the affidavits on the grounds he did not have authority to re-litigate the issue which had been determined by the Board and had no authority to review or consider the issues decided by the Board upon which its certification of the Union was based. 36 The respondent requested permission to appeal from the ruling of the Examiner rejecting its affidavits and refusing to order the production of the affidavits obtained by the Regional Director. This request was denied. 37 The court, in NLRB v. Air Control Products, 335 F.2d 245, 249 (5 C.A. 1964), considered the circumstances which would require a hearing on objection to the election there involved, stating: 38 Of course it is clear that § 8(a) (5) orders which rest on crucial factual determinations made after ex parte investigations and without hearing cannot stand. 39 The court later, in the same paragraph, observes: 40    the case law is clear that the Director is not required to grant a hearing on objections when the presentation of the objecting party demonstrates that if all the evidence were credited no ground is shown which would warrant setting aside the election. 41 In NLRB v. Sun Drug Co., 359 F.2d 408, 414-15 (3 C.A.1966), the court was concerned with evidentiary hearings. It states, at page 414: 42 Judicial decisions have clearly established that the courts will review Board orders based on the disposition of challenges to crucial ballots without an evidentiary hearing to insure that they are consistent with these rules. The parties are entitled to such a hearing if substantial and material factual issues are raised, and if the Board has clearly erred in denying a hearing its order will not be enforced. 43 In holding that an evidentiary hearing was not required in that case, the court states: 44 In any event, respondent here sought an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there was a substantial and material question of fact. This is a question of law and due process does not require an evidentiary hearing as a prerequisite to a valid determination of a question of law. 45 This court concludes that the Trial Examiner did have authority to consider and decide the question of whether there was a substantial and material issue of fact crucial to the determination of the propriety of certification of the election results. The court also concludes that if all the facts contended for by the respondent were credited, there would be grounds which would warrant setting aside the election. As stated by the court in NLRB v. Bata Shoe Company, supra: 46 Due process of law demands and the present Rules and Regulations of the Labor Board provide that where there is a substantial and material issue of fact relating to the validity of a representation election that a hearing be conducted at some stage of the administrative proceeding before the objecting party's rights can be affected by an enforcement order. [Page 825]