Court Opinion

ID: 9460918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:02:34.426846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:49.616478
License: Public Domain

SPRECHER, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in that portion of Judge Pell’s opinion whereby the Board’s order is enforced.
I dissent from the denial of enforcement of that part of the order directing the employer to bargain with the union. My reason for doing so is that I believe that the promise of wage increases three days before the election had “the tendency to undermine majority strength and impede the election processes.” National Labor Relations Board v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 614, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 1940, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969).
The nine employee authorization cards out of thirteen employees indicated that only four employees were opposed to the union shortly prior to the election. After the promised wage increase, the election vote was five to five, indicating the change of only one vote as definitely opposed to the union. Three employees, on the other hand, who had apparently signed cards were influenced enough to abstain from voting without having changed their labor philosophy to that of anti-union. In other words, they were temporarily mollified. This tends to show as much causal connection between the promised increase and the tainted vote as can ever reasonably be traced.
The Board’s analysis of the possibility of holding a fair election under these circumstances (footnote 7 of majority opinion) are sufficient “specific findings” in my view to satisfy Peerless of America, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 484 F.2d 1108 (7th Cir. 1973).