Sahara-Tahoe Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

Ninth Circuit

Sahara-Tahoe Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

533 F.2d 1125, 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2176, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12144

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 29, 1976

Docket75-2036

StatusPublished

This text of 533 F.2d 1125 (Sahara-Tahoe Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sahara-Tahoe Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 533 F.2d 1125, 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2176, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12144 (9th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is a petition to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board which followed findings on two unfair labor practices on the part of the management of a hotel. We enforce the order in part and deny enforcement in part.

The alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act § 8(a)(1) and (3), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (3) (1970), consisted in the discharge of Audrey J. Hewitt, an employee, because of her activities on behalf of a labor union. We have reviewed the evidence and have concluded that the findings of the administrative law judge, which were ratified by the Board, are supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. The remedy provided in the Board’s order (reinstatement and other relief) is correct as a matter of law, and the order in this respect is entitled to be enforced.

The alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1) in the unlawful and coercive interrogation of waitress Bernice Eggerman is not supported by evidence. The evidence was that a supervisory employee asked Ms. Eggerman if she was “going to join the union.” The efforts of the union and the general counsel to build this relatively innocuous question into an unfair labor practice falls short of proof of the necessary coercive atmosphere to make this a violation. Some anxiety may have followed in the wake of the firing of the union organizer, Ms. Hewitt, but the conversation with Ms. Eggerman preceded the Hewitt discharge. The findings of fact indicate that the Eggerman episode occurred “early in July” and the Hewitt episode occurred July 27, 1974. The record reveals no coercive behavior on the part of the management prior to or contemporaneous with that conversation. Ms. Eggerman, who testified about the conversation, as did other witnesses, expressed no awareness of anti-union pressure from management. Counsel had every opportunity to bring out evidence of coercion if it existed.

The Board will present a form of order providing appropriate relief to Ms. Hewitt and omitting reference to the alleged coercive interrogation.

Judgment will be entered upon the presentation of a proper order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is a petition to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board which followed findings on two unfair labor practices on the part of the management of a hotel. We enforce the order in part and deny enforcement in part.

The alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act § 8(a)(1) and (3), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (3) (1970), consisted in the discharge of Audrey J. Hewitt, an employee, because of her activities on behalf of a labor union. We have reviewed the evidence and have concluded that the findings of the administrative law judge, which were ratified by the Board, are supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. The remedy provided in the Board’s order (reinstatement and other relief) is correct as a matter of law, and the order in this respect is entitled to be enforced.

The alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1) in the unlawful and coercive interrogation of waitress Bernice Eggerman is not supported by evidence. The evidence was that a supervisory employee asked Ms. Eggerman if she was “going to join the union.” The efforts of the union and the general counsel to build this relatively innocuous question into an unfair labor practice falls short of proof of the necessary coercive atmosphere to make this a violation. Some anxiety may have followed in the wake of the firing of the union organizer, Ms. Hewitt, but the conversation with Ms. Eggerman preceded the Hewitt discharge. The findings of fact indicate that the Eggerman episode occurred “early in July” and the Hewitt episode occurred July 27, 1974. The record reveals no coercive behavior on the part of the management prior to or contemporaneous with that conversation. Ms. Eggerman, who testified about the conversation, as did other witnesses, expressed no awareness of anti-union pressure from management. Counsel had every opportunity to bring out evidence of coercion if it existed.

The Board will present a form of order providing appropriate relief to Ms. Hewitt and omitting reference to the alleged coercive interrogation.

Judgment will be entered upon the presentation of a proper order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 F.2d 1125, 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2176, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sahara-tahoe-corporation-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca9-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack