National Labor Relations Board v. Inland Motors

Ninth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Inland Motors

439 F.2d 82, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2639, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11677

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 25, 1971

Docket25762_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 439 F.2d 82 (National Labor Relations Board v. Inland Motors) 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. Inland Motors, 439 F.2d 82, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2639, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11677 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

The petition for enforcement is granted.

The evidence permitted the drawing of conflicting inferences. Those upon which the Board based its order are not unreasonable; hence, we cannot overturn the factual conclusions upon which the Board’s order was based. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Greentree Electronics Corp., 432 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1970). See also Santa Fe Drilling Company v. N. L. R. B., 416 F.2d 725 (9th Cir. 1969).¹

¹

. Judge Wright’s dissenting opinion very carefully emphasizes those facts which might have justified a different conclusion on the part of the Board. It also underscores the fact that the Board’s resolution of the controversy rested upon its interpretation and application of sharply conflicting inferences. As in most matters of this type, the record under consideration discloses circumstances which are somewhat unique; consequently, the majority concludes that no useful purpose would be served by expanding an opinion which can have little precedential value. [83]*83Suffice it to say that there are many indications that Michael was truly discharged because of his engagement in protected union activity and that the reasons ultimately given by the employer for his discharge, which, incidentally, were not given at the time of the discharge, were pretextual. For an adequate rebuttal to Judge Wright’s opinion, see the opinion of the Board, reported at 175 NLRB No. 139.

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

PER CURIAM:

The petition for enforcement is granted.

The evidence permitted the drawing of conflicting inferences. Those upon which the Board based its order are not unreasonable; hence, we cannot overturn the factual conclusions upon which the Board’s order was based. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Greentree Electronics Corp., 432 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1970). See also Santa Fe Drilling Company v. N. L. R. B., 416 F.2d 725 (9th Cir. 1969).¹

¹

. Judge Wright’s dissenting opinion very carefully emphasizes those facts which might have justified a different conclusion on the part of the Board. It also underscores the fact that the Board’s resolution of the controversy rested upon its interpretation and application of sharply conflicting inferences. As in most matters of this type, the record under consideration discloses circumstances which are somewhat unique; consequently, the majority concludes that no useful purpose would be served by expanding an opinion which can have little precedential value. [83]*83Suffice it to say that there are many indications that Michael was truly discharged because of his engagement in protected union activity and that the reasons ultimately given by the employer for his discharge, which, incidentally, were not given at the time of the discharge, were pretextual. For an adequate rebuttal to Judge Wright’s opinion, see the opinion of the Board, reported at 175 NLRB No. 139.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 F.2d 82, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2639, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-inland-motors-ca9-1971.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack