National Labor Relations Board v. Helms Bakeries, and Bakery Drivers Local Union No. 276, Etc.

Ninth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Helms Bakeries, and Bakery Drivers Local Union No. 276, Etc.

422 F.2d 863

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 1970

Docket24176_1

StatusPublished

This text of 422 F.2d 863 (National Labor Relations Board v. Helms Bakeries, and Bakery Drivers Local Union No. 276, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Labor Relations Board v. Helms Bakeries, and Bakery Drivers Local Union No. 276, Etc., 422 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The respondent Union induced the respondent employer to discharge a certain employee. The Board determined that the employer violated sections 8(a) (3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and that the Union violated sections 8(c) (2) and 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act by causing the discriminatory discharge. Pursuant to its conclusions, the Board issued the remedial Order here sought to be enforced.

It is unnecessary to recite the facts, inasmuch as they appear in the Board’s Decision and Order, reported at 171 N.L.R.B. No. 3. The propriety of the Order rests upon the validity of the Board’s factual determination that the employee was not a member of the Union and that hence, he was excused from his nonpayment of Union dues.

The Union vigorously argues that the Board’s critical determination is insupportable. The argument has force, and were we empowered to act as an original fact-finding body, we might be persuaded to accept it. The Board’s opinion, however, is carefully reasoned, analyzing all of the relevant factual considerations. We cannot, in the light of all the evidence, including permissible inferences, fairly say that the Board’s factual determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Board’s Order will be

Enforced.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The respondent Union induced the respondent employer to discharge a certain employee. The Board determined that the employer violated sections 8(a) (3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and that the Union violated sections 8(c) (2) and 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act by causing the discriminatory discharge. Pursuant to its conclusions, the Board issued the remedial Order here sought to be enforced.

It is unnecessary to recite the facts, inasmuch as they appear in the Board’s Decision and Order, reported at 171 N.L.R.B. No. 3. The propriety of the Order rests upon the validity of the Board’s factual determination that the employee was not a member of the Union and that hence, he was excused from his nonpayment of Union dues.

The Union vigorously argues that the Board’s critical determination is insupportable. The argument has force, and were we empowered to act as an original fact-finding body, we might be persuaded to accept it. The Board’s opinion, however, is carefully reasoned, analyzing all of the relevant factual considerations. We cannot, in the light of all the evidence, including permissible inferences, fairly say that the Board’s factual determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Board’s Order will be

Enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 F.2d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-helms-bakeries-and-bakery-drivers-local-ca9-1970.