Opinion

Levitz Furniture Company of Santa Clara, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

  • 587 F.2d 983
  • 100 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2302
  • 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7174
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Dec 11, 1978
Status
Published
On the bench
Duniway, Kilkenny, Belloni
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 14.1%

The opinion

PER CURIAM:

Levitz Furniture Company petitions for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The Board asks us to enforce its order. The Board’s Supplemental Order is reported at 234 NLRB No. 177 (1978). It was entered following a remand by this court, on February 7, 1976. The Board’s original order, dealing with Levitz’s objections to a representation election, is reported

sub nom. Retail Store Employees’ Union Local 424,

204 NLRB 1046 , 1053 (1973). We find no merit in Levitz’s attacks upon the Board’s order.

The Union’s waiver of initiation fees was sent to all employees, whether union supporters or not, was good until thirty days after a contract would be made between Levitz and the Union, and was in no way conditional upon support of or a vote for the Union. It thus was not improper under

NLRB

v.

Savair Mfg. Co.,

414 U.S. 270 , 94 S.Ct. 495 , 38 L.Ed.2d 495 (1973).

NLRB v. L. D. McFarland Co.,

572 F.2d 256, 258-9 (9th Cir., 1978);

NLRB v. Aaron Bros. Corp.,

563 F.2d 409, 412-3 (9th Cir., 1977). In these respects, it differs from

NLRB v. Aladdin Hotel Corp.,

584 F.2d 891 (9th Cir., 1978).

This is not a case, like

NLRB v. Gorbea, Perez & Morrell, S. en C.,

328 F.2d 679 (1st Cir., 1964), in which the union’s offer was held to be illusory because the union never charged anyone an initiation fee. Here, the union does charge such a fee to all who do not fall within the terms of its offer.

We find no merit in Levitz’s claim that, by reason of delay, a bargaining order would deprive it of due process of law.

NLRB v. Gissell Packing Co.,

395 U.S. 575, 610-11 , 89 S.Ct. 1918 , 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969);

NLRB v. Katz,

369 U.S. 736, 748, n.16 , 82 S.Ct. 1107 , 8 L.Ed.2d 230 (1962);

NLRB v. Pacific Southwest Airlines,

550 F.2d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir., 1977);

NLRB v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of San Mateo,

472 F.2d 140,141 (9th Cir., 1972). We will not, by denying

*984

enforcement, “put a premium upon continued litigation by the employer,”

NLRB v. L. B. Foster Co.,

418 F.2d 1, 4 (9th Cir., 1969), and cases there cited.

The order of the Board will be enforced.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.