“[T]he [National Labor Relations Board’s] failure to review the entire record before the Regional Director was held to lead to ‘rubber stamp’ review raising serious due process problems.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he [National Labor Relations Board’s] failure to review the entire record before the Regional Director was held to lead to ‘rubber stamp’ review raising serious due process problems.”
- “As the party challenging the election, [the employer] had the burden of showing by specific evidence at the hearing that 1
- Lovell, District Judge, Concurring
- abuse of discretion standard
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the judgment, with one observation. The goal of an organizing campaign, achieved through free and vigorous debate, is to make an informed choice possible for employees. See Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53, 62 , 86 S.Ct. 657, 663 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966); NLRB v. Lenkurt Elec. Co., 438 F.2d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir.1978). Given this goal, it is somewhat odd to require employees to sign authorization cards before hearing the Union’s pitch. The company, however, argues only that the principles of NLRB v. Savair Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 270 , 94 S.Ct. 495 , 38 L.Ed.2d 495 (1973), have been violated, and that is not the case.