Court Opinion

ID: 9469311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:37:10.745418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:19.463234
License: Public Domain

*3LEONARD P. MOORE,
Circuit Judge (concurring in part; dissenting in part):
I concur in the granting of the Board’s enforcement order, but dissent from holding that the election was “so one-sided” as to justify a conclusion that Lance’s “refusal to bargain [was] frivolous and dilatory in purpose”. Even accepting the majority characterization of the literature as “the usual permissible campaign rhetoric”, I cannot agree that a vote of 107 pro union and 67 against is so one-sided as to invite the consequences of costs and attorneys’ fees which the majority suggests; nor can I accept the conclusion that “Lance was either poorly advised to challenge the certification election” or that it was “determined to delay its bargaining obligations”. In either case, counsel or the client would be acting at his peril in resisting any enforcement proceeding. Neither should be put in that position.