From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Zeiglers Refuse Collectors, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
639 F.2d 1000 (1981)
Facts
The employees of Zeiglers Refuse Collectors, Inc. (Zeiglers) (plaintiff) voted 16-14 in favor of representation by the Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local 430 union (the union). Zeiglers challenged the election results, alleging that pro-union employees had coerced other Zeiglers employees into voting for the union. A hearing officer found that pro-union employees had threatened physical violence at least five times, and that the threats of one of the pro-union employees in particular—Charles “Pee Wee” Preston, who was 6’7” and weighed 250 pounds—especially created fear among the other employees. Based on this information, the hearing officer concluded that the outcome of the election had been swayed by the threats, and he recommended setting aside the election and holding a new one. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (defendant) rejected the hearing officer’s conclusion. The NLRB stated that the threats could not be attributed to the union and that the threats were not serious but rather “mere campaign bravado.” Therefore, the NLRB certified the union as the representative of Zeiglers’s employees and ordered Zeiglers to bargain with the unit. Zeiglers petitioned for review of the order, and the NLRB cross-petitioned to enforce the order.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Garth, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
