LTV ELECTROSYSTEMS, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not err in finding that the company's 'leadmen' were not supervisors and that an evidentiary hearing was not required.
LTV Electrosystems challenged an NLRB order to bargain, arguing its 'leadmen' were supervisors and that it was denied a hearing on election irregulari…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Election Irregularities cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
LTV Electrosystems, Inc., urges that its “leadmen” were supervisors, and that the National Labor Relations Board erroneously did not afford the company a hearing on alleged election irregularities and in the unfair labor practice proceeding that resulted in an order to bargain.1 For these reasons it challenges the Board’s finding that it violated §§ 8(a) (5) and (1) of the act2 by its refusal to bargain. After extensive evidentiary hearings, the Board determined that the “leadmen” were not supervisors. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that these employees were properly included in the bargaining unit.
The Regional Director investigated the charges of election irregularities and found them to be without merit. The company’s exceptions to his report show no substantial and material issues of fact that could be resolved only in a hearing. The company’s request for review was denied by the Board. Under the circumstances, the Board was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing. Macomb Pottery Co. v. NLRB, 376 F. 2d 450 (7th Cir. 1967). Nor was an evi-dentiary hearing required in the unfair labor practice proceeding. Cf. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 161, 61 S.Ct. 908, 85 L.Ed. 1251 (1941). Summary judgment was appropriate. Neuhoff Brothers, Packers, Inc. v. NLRB, 362 F. 2d 611, 613 (5th Cir. 1966), cert, den., 386 U.S. 956, 87 S.Ct. 1027, 18 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967); NLRB v. Puritan Sportswear Corp., 385 F. 2d 142, (3rd Cir., Nov. 1, 1967).
The Board’s order will be enforced.
Enforced.
. The decision and order are reported in LTV Electrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 81, 65 LRRM 1590 (1967).
. 29 U.S.O. § 158(a) (5) and (1).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Union Bros., Inc., 403 F.2d 883 (4th Cir. 1968)
-
Lipman Motors, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 451 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1971)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Capitan Drilling Co., 408 F.2d 676 (5th Cir. 1969)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 313 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1941)
- Henry Van Hummell, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 386 U.S. 956 (U.S. 1967)
- MacOmb Pottery Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 376 F.2d 450 (7th Cir. 1967)
- Neuhoff Bros. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 362 F.2d 611 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The Puritan Sportswear Corp., 385 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1967)