Pacific Plywood Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Independent Particle Board Employees, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Pacific Plywood Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Independent Particle Board Employees, Inc.

315 F.2d 671, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2715, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5843

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 1963

Docket17712

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 315 F.2d 671 (Pacific Plywood Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Independent Particle Board Employees, Inc.) 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

Pacific Plywood Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Independent Particle Board Employees, Inc., 315 F.2d 671, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2715, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5843 (9th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the court upon a petition of Pacific Plywood Co. to set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board against Pacific and against Independent Particle Board Employees, Inc., a union in Pacific’s plant, the Board’s answer in which it requests enforcement of that part of its order which runs against Pacific, and the Board’s petition for enforcement of that part of its order which runs against Independent. The Board’s decision and order are reported at 134 N.L.R.B. No. 77. The Board’s jurisdiction is based on Section 10 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. This court’s jurisdiction is based upon paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 10 of the same Act.

The Board found that Independent, the union, violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1) (A) of the Act by causing Pacific to discharge an employee, and that Pacific violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging the employee. The Board’s order requires Pacific and Independent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and to take certain affirmative actions, including the reinstatement by Pacific of the discharged employee, and the payment to her by Pacific and Independent of reimbursement for her loss of earnings resulting from her discharge.

In this court, Pacific urges that certain pressures which were brought to bear upon it tending to cause it to discharge the employee were not pressures of the union, but those of union officers and members as individuals. There was conflicting testimony, and there were writings from which inferences had to be drawn. The Board’s Trial Examiner, who observed the demeanor of the witnesses, made his findings, and the Board adopted those findings. Section 10(e) of the Act admonishes us that the findings of the Board with respect to questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence ¿ on the record considered as a whole shall be conclusive. The Board’s findings are adequately supported, hence we may not disturb them. Nor do we find merit in Pacific’s complaint as to certain rulings of the Board’s Trial Examiner with regard to the admission and exclusion of evidence.

The petition of Pacific Plywood Co. is denied. The petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of the order is granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the court upon a petition of Pacific Plywood Co. to set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board against Pacific and against Independent Particle Board Employees, Inc., a union in Pacific’s plant, the Board’s answer in which it requests enforcement of that part of its order which runs against Pacific, and the Board’s petition for enforcement of that part of its order which runs against Independent. The Board’s decision and order are reported at 134 N.L.R.B. No. 77. The Board’s jurisdiction is based on Section 10 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. This court’s jurisdiction is based upon paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 10 of the same Act.

The Board found that Independent, the union, violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1) (A) of the Act by causing Pacific to discharge an employee, and that Pacific violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging the employee. The Board’s order requires Pacific and Independent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and to take certain affirmative actions, including the reinstatement by Pacific of the discharged employee, and the payment to her by Pacific and Independent of reimbursement for her loss of earnings resulting from her discharge.

In this court, Pacific urges that certain pressures which were brought to bear upon it tending to cause it to discharge the employee were not pressures of the union, but those of union officers and members as individuals. There was conflicting testimony, and there were writings from which inferences had to be drawn. The Board’s Trial Examiner, who observed the demeanor of the witnesses, made his findings, and the Board adopted those findings. Section 10(e) of the Act admonishes us that the findings of the Board with respect to questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence ¿ on the record considered as a whole shall be conclusive. The Board’s findings are adequately supported, hence we may not disturb them. Nor do we find merit in Pacific’s complaint as to certain rulings of the Board’s Trial Examiner with regard to the admission and exclusion of evidence.

The petition of Pacific Plywood Co. is denied. The petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of the order is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

315 F.2d 671, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2715, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-plywood-co-v-national-labor-relations-board-national-labor-ca9-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack