National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Serrot Corporation, Respondent, 47 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 1995)

Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB Nos. 21-CA-27946;

NLRB,

APPLICATION GRANTED.

Before: BRUNETTI and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR,^**  District Judge.

MEMORANDUM^*** 

Serrot opposes the NLRB's application for enforcement of its bargaining order on only one ground: the NLRB should have set aside the union certification election because of three unsavory incidents -- two threats by one pro-union employee (Salvador) against a pro-employer employee (Vargas), and a subsequent fight between them.

Serrot objected to the election and sought to have it set aside, and the NLRB referred the matter to a hearing officer, who heard extensive testimony and reached the following factual conclusions: Salvador twice threatened Vargas because of Vargas' pro-employer stance; Salvador struck Vargas because Vargas made disparaging remarks about Salvador's girlfriend, and because they were both drunk, not because of Vargas' antiunion sentiments; Salvador's threats were not directed at the entire bargaining unit and witnesses did not take them very seriously; and the fight was not widely portrayed to the bargaining unit as being related to Vargas' antiunion sentiments. Substantial evidence supports these findings. See N.L.R.B. v. O'Neill, 965 F.2d 1522, 1526 (9th Cir. 1992).

The NLRB adopted the hearing officer's determination and held that these incidents do not require that the election be set aside because they did not create a general atmosphere of fear and coercion so as to render the free choice of a bargaining representative impossible. See N.L.R.B. v. Eskimo Radiator Mfg. Co., 688 F.2d 1315, 1319 (9th Cir. 1982); N.L.R.B. v. Sonoma Vineyards, Inc., 727 F.2d 860, 865 (9th Cir. 1984). We find no error in this conclusion or in the legal standard applied.

Accordingly, the NLRB's application for enforcement is

GRANTED.