National Labor Relations Board, and Automobile Salesman's Union, Local 1095, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Afl-Cio, Intervenor v. Ed Chandler Ford, Inc.

Citation: 718 F.2d 892Docket: 82-7351

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; October 26, 1983; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In August 1978, the Automobile Salesman's Union initiated an organization campaign for salespersons at Ed Chandler Ford, Inc. The Union requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative, claiming a majority of signed authorization cards from the salespersons. The Company refused, prompting the Union to petition the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a representation election, which was held on September 26, 1978. The Union did not receive a majority vote and subsequently filed objections regarding the election's conduct, alleging that the Company committed multiple unfair labor practices.

The NLRB found these practices significant enough to undermine the fairness of a potential second election and determined that 18 out of 35 employees had validly signed authorization cards. Consequently, the Board ordered the Company to recognize and bargain with the Union. However, the Court of Appeals, upon reviewing the evidence, concluded that only 17 out of the 35 salespersons had authorized the Union, thus indicating the Union did not possess a valid card majority.

The record included testimony from salesperson Hank Medieros, who stated he was instructed by Union Business Agent Ed Hill about the circulation of authorization cards, which were intended to facilitate an election. The Court referenced the Supreme Court case NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., which upheld the NLRB's interpretation of authorization card validity, noting that cards are valid unless it is shown that signers were informed they were solely for election purposes.

The Court endorsed the Board's interpretation from Levi Strauss, emphasizing that the key consideration is not the specific wording used but the overall circumstances surrounding the solicitation of the card. In this case, the Board supported the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Hill assured Medieros the card's sole purpose was for election support. However, the Board deemed this representation too distant due to the timing of Medieros signing the card, the intermediary (Taylor) obtaining the signature without making any representations, and the lack of direct connection to Hill's statement.

The Court disagreed with the Board, asserting that Hill's paid position as a Union official and Medieros' reliance on Hill's statements created a clear connection to the purpose for which the card was signed. The Court found no evidence that Medieros did not rely on Hill's representation, thus including it in the "totality of circumstances" analysis. The decision to invalidate Medieros' card was justified, as Hill's representation was considered objective evidence impacting the card's validity.

The enforcement of the bargaining order was denied because the Union did not achieve majority status. The Company did not contest the Board's findings of violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, leading the Court to affirm that portion of the Board's order related to unfair labor practices. The violations included threats against union activities, restrictions on discussing the union during nonworking time, inclusion of an ineligible voter in the eligibility list, and threats of bonus cancellations for union support. Enforcement of the uncontested violations was granted, while the bargaining order was denied.