United Steel Workers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Fibreboard Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

D.C. Circuit

United Steel Workers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Fibreboard Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

436 F.2d 908

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 1971

Docket23853_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 436 F.2d 908 (United Steel Workers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Fibreboard Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United Steel Workers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Fibreboard Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 436 F.2d 908 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The background of these unfair labor practice proceedings is fully set out in this court’s decision enforcing the Board’s order as modified. East Bay Union of Machinists, Local 1304, United Steelworkers of America, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. N. L. R. B., 116 U.S.App.D.C. 198, 322 F.2d 411 (1963), affirmed, sub nom. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 379 U.S. 203, 85 S.Ct. 398, 13 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964). The instant case relates only to the supplemental back pay proceedings resulting from the Board’s order.

Both the union and the company raise various objections to the Board’s disposition of these proceedings. We have carefully examined all these objections and find that the Board in its supplemental decision and order has correctly stated the law applicable to the issues presented. See 180 NLRB No. 33 (1969). We also find that there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Board’s factual findings. While on some of the issues we may well have found differently,

“[a]s with the Board’s other remedies, the power to order back pay ‘is for the Board to wield, not for the courts.’ NLRB v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, 346 [73 S.Ct. 287, 97 L.Ed. 377] (1953). ‘When the Board, “in the exercise of its informed discretion,” makes an order of restoration by way of back pay, the order “should stand unless it can be shown that the order is a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the Act.” ’ Id., at 346-347 [73 S.Ct. at 289.]”

N.L.R.B. v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co., 396 U.S. 258, 263, 90 S.Ct. 417, 420, 24 L.Ed.2d 405 (1969).

The petitions of the union and the company to review and set aside in part the Board’s supplemental order in this case are denied and the supplemental order will be enforced.

So ordered.

MATTHEWS, Senior District Judge, respectfully dissents.

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

PER CURIAM:

The background of these unfair labor practice proceedings is fully set out in this court’s decision enforcing the Board’s order as modified. East Bay Union of Machinists, Local 1304, United Steelworkers of America, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. N. L. R. B., 116 U.S.App.D.C. 198, 322 F.2d 411 (1963), affirmed, sub nom. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 379 U.S. 203, 85 S.Ct. 398, 13 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964). The instant case relates only to the supplemental back pay proceedings resulting from the Board’s order.

Both the union and the company raise various objections to the Board’s disposition of these proceedings. We have carefully examined all these objections and find that the Board in its supplemental decision and order has correctly stated the law applicable to the issues presented. See 180 NLRB No. 33 (1969). We also find that there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Board’s factual findings. While on some of the issues we may well have found differently,

“[a]s with the Board’s other remedies, the power to order back pay ‘is for the Board to wield, not for the courts.’ NLRB v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, 346 [73 S.Ct. 287, 97 L.Ed. 377] (1953). ‘When the Board, “in the exercise of its informed discretion,” makes an order of restoration by way of back pay, the order “should stand unless it can be shown that the order is a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the Act.” ’ Id., at 346-347 [73 S.Ct. at 289.]”

N.L.R.B. v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co., 396 U.S. 258, 263, 90 S.Ct. 417, 420, 24 L.Ed.2d 405 (1969).

The petitions of the union and the company to review and set aside in part the Board’s supplemental order in this case are denied and the supplemental order will be enforced.

So ordered.

MATTHEWS, Senior District Judge, respectfully dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 F.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-steel-workers-of-america-afl-cio-v-national-labor-relations-board-cadc-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack