N.L.R.B. v. Central Press of California
| Decision Date | 03 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--2689,74--2689 |
| Citation | 527 F.2d 1156 |
| Parties | 91 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2236, 78 Lab.Cas. P 11,171 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CENTRAL PRESS OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before WRIGHT and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, Senior District Judge. *
The Board found that respondent violated sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act by discharging an employee because he sympathized with and worked on behalf of a union. The Board order issued May 21 1974 is reported at 210 NLRB No. 113.
Respondent urges this court to remand the cause for a new evidentiary hearing because (1) the Administrative Law Judge was biased and (2) the Board allegedly did not consider on of the defenses raised by the respondent. We reject both contentions and enforce the Board order in full.
Neither the Administrative Law Judge's determinations of credibility adverse to respondent nor his questions to witnesses support respondent's allegation of judicial bias. See N.L.R.B. v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 337 U.S. 656, 659--60, 69 S.Ct. 1283, 93 L.Ed. 1602 (1949); N.L.R.B. v. Air Flow Sheet Metal, Inc., 396 F.2d 506, 508 (7th Cir. 1968).
Respondent's second argument for remand is that the Board did not specifically consider a defense it offered to the unlawful discharge. Respondent asserted before the Administrative Law Judge and the Board that the employee's discharge was for good cause. The Administrative Law Judge found that this was not 'the sole or controlling reason.' (C.T. 5). While the Board decision did not specifically refer to this assertion, it too considered it and there is no need to remand.
The Board noted that the general counsel had established a prima facie case of an unfair labor practice. It then said that such a case can be 210 NLRB No. 113 (slip op. at 3).
While it is regrettable that the Board did not refer directly to the evidence of discharge for cause, the above statement indicates it examined all the evidence, including the allegation of discharge for cause, before affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. If there were any doubt about the scope of the evidence considered by the Board at this time, it was entirely removed when the Board denied respondent's motion for reconsideration which had raised as its sole contention the Board's alleged failure to consider the assertion that the discharge was for good cause.
Moreover, even if we were unsure whether the Board considered this assertion, we would enforce the order because the Board found that anti-union sentiment had at least partially...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
...& Elec. Co., 344 F.2d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 1965) ; Hedison Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 643 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1981).6 NLRB v. Cent. Press Cal., 527 F.2d 1156, 1157 (9th Cir. 1975).7 Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 556, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).8 For example, CVMC's reply brief a......
-
Abatti Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...reason, sufficient in itself, to produce the discharge. (Citation.)" (Fns. omitted.) The ninth circuit (N.L.R.B. v. Central Press of California (9th Cir. 1975) 527 F.2d 1156, 1158) has articulated this correct "The Board noted that the general counsel had established a prima facie case of a......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Big Three Indus. Gas & Equipment Co.
...532 F.2d 916, 920, n.5 (3d Cir. 1976); NLRB v. Elias Bros. Restaurants, Inc., 496 F.2d 1165, 1167 (6th Cir. 1974); NLRB v. Central Press of Cal., 527 F.2d 1156 (9th Cir. 1975). The most exacting test is the preponderant motive or "but for" standard of the First Circuit. Stone & Webster Engi......
-
L'Eggs Products, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...would this employee have been discharged but for his or her union activity?" (emphasis in original). In NLRB v. Central Press of California, 9 Cir., 1975, 527 F.2d 1156, 1158, we upheld the Board's finding of a violation because it found that a discharge was at least partially motivated by ......