National Labor Relations Board v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 1281, Afl-Cio

Ninth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 1281, Afl-Cio

369 F.2d 684, 63 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2592, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4283

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 23, 1966

Docket20761_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 369 F.2d 684 (National Labor Relations Board v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 1281, Afl-Cio) 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. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 1281, Afl-Cio, 369 F.2d 684, 63 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2592, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4283 (9th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board has entered an order requiring respondent union to cease and desist from causing or attempting to cause Rayber-Kief, Inc., to deny employment to, or in any other manner discriminate against, Ivan DiBoff, in violation of section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act; or from denying a referral to, or in any other way discriminating against DiBoff for engaging in activities as a union member or from in any like or related manner restraining or coercing the company’s employees in the exercise of their statutory rights. Affirmatively the union was required to notify the company that it had no objection to the continued employment of DiBoff and to make DiBoff whole for loss of wages and to post appropriate notices. 152 N.L.R.B. No. 48.

The Board now petitions for enforcement, and respondent challenges the factual determinations of the Board upon two issues: (1) whether Powell, in operating the union hiring hall, discriminated against DiBoff; (2) if so, whether such discrimination was improperly motivated or was the result of innocent mistake. Upon neither issue were the Board’s findings clearly erroneous.

There is ample support for the Board’s finding that Powell referred other list 2 carpenters to Rayber-Kief in disregard of its agreed quota while denying such reference to DiBoff. There is no basis for an assumption that the referred carpenters were requested by name, and in any case an inference of a continuing request for DiBoff was available under the facts. The Board was not in error in holding that such conduct amounted to discrimination.

The union asserts that in finding that the discrimination was motivated by animus, the Board has disregarded credibility determinations of the hearing examiner. We disagree. The hearing examiner did not reach this question, having concluded that there was no discrimination.

The Board’s order is entitled to enforcement.

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

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board has entered an order requiring respondent union to cease and desist from causing or attempting to cause Rayber-Kief, Inc., to deny employment to, or in any other manner discriminate against, Ivan DiBoff, in violation of section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act; or from denying a referral to, or in any other way discriminating against DiBoff for engaging in activities as a union member or from in any like or related manner restraining or coercing the company’s employees in the exercise of their statutory rights. Affirmatively the union was required to notify the company that it had no objection to the continued employment of DiBoff and to make DiBoff whole for loss of wages and to post appropriate notices. 152 N.L.R.B. No. 48.

The Board now petitions for enforcement, and respondent challenges the factual determinations of the Board upon two issues: (1) whether Powell, in operating the union hiring hall, discriminated against DiBoff; (2) if so, whether such discrimination was improperly motivated or was the result of innocent mistake. Upon neither issue were the Board’s findings clearly erroneous.

There is ample support for the Board’s finding that Powell referred other list 2 carpenters to Rayber-Kief in disregard of its agreed quota while denying such reference to DiBoff. There is no basis for an assumption that the referred carpenters were requested by name, and in any case an inference of a continuing request for DiBoff was available under the facts. The Board was not in error in holding that such conduct amounted to discrimination.

The union asserts that in finding that the discrimination was motivated by animus, the Board has disregarded credibility determinations of the hearing examiner. We disagree. The hearing examiner did not reach this question, having concluded that there was no discrimination.

The Board’s order is entitled to enforcement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 F.2d 684, 63 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2592, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-united-brotherhood-of-carpenters-ca9-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack