CORONET-WESTERN, A DIVISION OF CORONET INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER AND CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT AND CROSS-PETITIONER
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 company failed to show the Board erred in concluding that allegedly misleading campaign materials did not significantly impair the election process.
Coronet-Western petitioned for review of a Board order requiring it to bargain with Teamsters Local 389, challenging the validity of a representation …
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 NLRB Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The Board’s Decision and Order is reported at 212 NLRB No. 70 (1974).
Coronet-Western petitions for review of the Order, which requires the company to bargain with Teamsters Local 389. The Board cross-petitions for enforcement.
Coronet-Western has refused to bargain with the Teamsters in order to obtain judicial review of the validity of a representation election which resulted in the Board’s certification of the Teamsters as the exclusive bargaining agent for certain of Coronet-Western’s employees. Both before the Board and here, Coronet-Western has argued that the election should be set aside because, on the day before the election was held, the Teamsters circulated allegedly misleading campaign materials.
In supervising election proceedings, the Board has a wide degree of discretion. The scope of our review, on the other hand, is limited. See, e. g., NLRB v. A. J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 330, 67 S.Ct. 324, 91 L.Ed. 322 (1946); NLRB v. Sauk Valley Manufacturing Co., Inc., 486 F. 2d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1973).
While the Teamsters’ campaign materials might have been slightly misleading, and although Coronet-Western had no opportunity to respond to the materials, Coronet-Western has not shown that the Board erred in concluding that the materials did not significantly impair the election process. See NLRB v. Sauk Valley Manufacturing Co., Inc., supra at 1130-31; cf. Thiem Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 489 F. 2d 788 (9th Cir. 1973).
The contentions made in Coronet-Western’s Petition to Review are rejected, and, pursuant to the Board’s cross-petition, the Board’s Order will be
Enforced.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hecla Mining Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 564 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
ST. Elizabeth Cmty. Hosp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 708 F.2d 1436 (9th Cir. 1983)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Metro-Truck Body, Inc., 613 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1979)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. A. J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1946)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sauk Valley Mfg. Co., Inc., 486 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1973)
- Thiem Indus., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 489 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1973)