*1 AINSWORTH, Before DYER Judges. SIMPSON, Circuit Products, Amax Extrusion Aluminum petitioned this Court to set aside Rela- final order Labor cease desist tions Board that bargain Alumi- from with num AFL- International Workers CIO, 8(a) in violation Section Relations Act. National Labor cross-petitioned for enforcement. refusal based on that the its contention subsequent certification of the *2 395 proceedings substantially of the tice ion be set aside because the should were existing objections by a upon and unrest as same as tension racial the relied Company representation Dr. the of the- pro- result of recent assassination in the Negro ceedings, King, allegations civil Martin Luther the and consisted of of alleged objec- rights leader, improper electioneering vicinity and other in the voting actions, area, the ef- of which had of the tionable all fraternization be- requisite alleged destroying representatives “labora- tween the fect of Union and day tory agent, the give the of the Board conditions” thus said to an appearance the occurred at irregularity, pre-election election of election.1 The Mississip- Hernando, Company’s plant misrepresentation, at threats and intimida- Area, Memphis by one pi, Union, atmosphere tion the in the Greater and the King. by King. day following of created the funeral the assassination of Regional Thirty-five for the cast The were Director caused numerous ballots ion, twenty-five against, chal- three and affidavits to taken and be all objections its lenged. Company thoroughly investigated filed then were The subsequently objections analyzed by that the election requesting the Re- gional a that report in alternative aside and the Director in his be set detailed in- hearing factual issues on the considered be held to be without De- merit. Regional spite speculative conduct- Director the nature of most of volved. The investigation allegations, the the an which in itself ed would preclude necessity hearing,2 he objections, recommended the the which of a after Regional Board Director, they The overruled. that assumed nevertheless findings Regional Director’s adopted the truth the thereof and still that concluded merit objections pressure were without there the was no undue coercion that or is- or substantial which would “raise no material have affected the election. would warrant which fact or law sues of consistently * ** This has require hear- a or reversal guarded rights party the of a a hear to accordingly certi- ing.” was The Union However, ing where one is warranted.3 representa- bargaining as fied collective repeatedly party we have held that ob a subsequently Company tive. jecting validity to the election an with the to refused present charge must and material substantial whereupon labor unfair the issues fact would warrant set brought against which The Trial Examiner it. ting mo- granted General Counsel’s aside the in order obtain the to then Pleadings, Judgment on the tion for hearing post-election representa in a a the sustained. which Board proceeding.4 us tion The record before Company has failed establishes the that Company the contends that carry heavy that to burden and hearing in order a erred presented no substantial issues new labor representation or unfair the either practice proceedings unfair defenses the labor proceedings. The practice prac- hearing. Company unfair labor “If require in the the which would a 1967, Drilling Cir., L. B., N. Delta v. v. N. L. 5 379 See Inc. R. 1969, 109, B., 241; Cir., 112- 406 Bd. R. 5 F.2d Labor Relations F.2d 113; Foods, 1956, City Co., Cir., Packing L.N. Inc. v. 5 Home Town v. Dallas B., 5 416 F.2d R. 230 F.2d 708. Capitan Drilling L. 2. See N. R. B. v. Inc., Industries, 5 L. B. N. R. v. Smith 677; Company, Cir., 5 408 F.2d 889, 892; Cir., F.2d Howell 403 Air Control B., Cir., Refining Company N. 5 v. Inc., Cir., Foods, 213; Home Town B., Cir., 1967, R. v. 241; Otronix, Rubber United States N. See R. B. Foods, Home Town 380 F.2d hearing hear, a nothing there is formality.”5 useless senseless and findings of that conclude We by record supported the Board are whole,6 and that as a considered *3 discretion reasonable Board exercised

light of the circumstances.7

Accordingly, Board is order of the

enforced. REHEARING FOR PETITION

ON REHEAR- FOR PETITION AND EN BANC

ING denied Petition Judge panel nor no member the Court on regular service active polled having requested that banc, (Rule Federal rehearing en Local Procedure; Appellate Rules 12) Petition Rule Circuit Fifth is denied. Banc CLUB, INC., Appellant,

DINERS BUMB, Trustee Dashew Business J. Machines, Inc., Appellee. Appeals

United States Court of

Ninth Circuit.

Jan. Cir., 1965, Camco, Incorporated, B. v. Air Control Manufacturing Pepperell Corp. 6. Universal Camera v. National La Labor Relations Board v. Bd., Texas, bor Rel. 340 U.S. 71 S.Ct. Animal Foods (1951); 95 L.Ed. 456