You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Sundor Brands, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Citations: 168 F.3d 515; 335 U.S. App. D.C. 7; 160 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2598; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3013Docket: 98-1184

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; February 26, 1999; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a dispute between Sundor Brands, Inc. and Local 68 of the International Union of Operating Engineers regarding the determination of an appropriate bargaining unit at Sundor's plant. The Union petitioned the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a representation election, and the Regional Director approved a unit comprising specific employee groups. Sundor contested this decision, arguing it deviated from the presumption favoring plant-wide units. The NLRB certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative following an election. Sundor's refusal to bargain led to a finding of unfair labor practice, prompting Sundor to appeal. The court remanded the case, questioning the NLRB's justification for the unit and highlighting a lack of substantial evidence supporting the determination. Additionally, Sundor's untimely objection to challenged ballots was dismissed under regulatory requirements. The court granted the petition for review, denied the Board's cross-application for enforcement, and remanded for further proceedings to clarify the unit determination based on a community of interest, as mandated by the NLRA.

Legal Issues Addressed

Challenge to Ballots in Representation Election

Application: Sundor's failure to timely object to the challenged ballots of Level 2 UCs led the Board to dismiss its claim.

Reasoning: Sundor contends that the Board's failure to inform parties about the Level 2 UCs casting challenged ballots improperly influenced the election outcome... However, Sundor did not raise this objection in a timely manner, as required by 29 C.F.R. 102.69(a).

Deference to NLRB's Decisions

Application: The Board's determinations are entitled to deference if supported by substantial evidence, but the court found insufficient justification for the bargaining unit determination.

Reasoning: The Board's determination is entitled to deference if supported by substantial evidence.

Presumption in Favor of Plant-wide Units

Application: The Board's determination deviated from the presumption in favor of plant-wide units, focusing instead on a smaller bargaining unit proposed by the employees.

Reasoning: Sundor contends that the unit determination deviates from Board precedent favoring plant-wide units.

Substantial Evidence Requirement

Application: The Board's determination must be supported by substantial evidence, and if any factor lacks evidentiary support, the determination must be revisited.

Reasoning: Sundor's main argument pertains to the sufficiency of evidence supporting the Board's unit determination, which was based on six analyzed factors.

Unit Determination under the National Labor Relations Act

Application: The court examined whether the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) determination of a bargaining unit at Sundor Brands, Inc. was justified based on a community of interest among employees.

Reasoning: The NLRA permits the Board to certify a bargaining unit based on a substantial community of interest among employees, considering factors such as wages, working conditions, supervision, skills, and interaction.