Court Opinion

ID: 9478283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:44:58.064242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:20.451478
License: Public Domain

GEORGE CLIFTON EDWARDS, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
In this case there was a secret ballot election at the Horn Company among its 36 eligible voters. The union received 19 votes and 17 were cast against union representation.
Horn claims that the election was skewed by threats of physical intimidation made by pro-union adherents in the plant. The Board, after a hearing, made findings of fact overruling these objections and the union demanded negotiations. When the petitioner refused, the Board ordered bargaining, resulting in this appeal. .
My colleagues on this panel have written to overturn the Board’s order. I dissent.
“The issue before us is whether the Board, in overruling the Company’s objections and certifying the union, acted within the wide discretion entrusted to it by Congress in resolving questions arising during the course of representation proceedings.” Tony Scott Trucking, Inc. v. NLRB, 821 F.2d 312, 313 (6th Cir.1987). The Board’s findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). The Board’s reasonable inferences may not be displaced on review even though the court might justifiably have reached a different conclusion had the matter been before it de novo. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488, 71 S.Ct. 456, 464, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951).
This appeal focuses on the events leading up to the representation election. To set aside a representation election it must be proven the election was not fairly conducted. NLRB v. MacDonald’s Industrial Products, 731 F.2d 340, 342 (6th Cir.1984). Moreover, it must be shown not only that unlawful acts occurred, but also that they interfered with the employees’ exercise of free choice to such an extent that they materially affected the results of the election. NLRB v. Bostik Division, USM Corp., 517 F.2d 971, 975 (6th Cir.1975). If the Board’s factual findings in this area are reasonable in light of the proven facts, they should be upheld. Here, they clearly were reasonable.