NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL & REINFORCED IRON WORKERS UNION, …
| Decision Date | 31 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2932.,71-2932. |
| Citation | 473 F.2d 816 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL & REINFORCED IRON WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 378, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Steven Kahn, Elliot Moore, Attys., NLRB, Washington, D. C., Roy O. Hoffman, Director, Region 20, NLRB, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Victor J. Van Bourg (argued), Mark Wurm, of Levy & Van Bourg, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
Before ELY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and KELLEHER,* District Judge.
The Board's Decision and Order, reported at 191 NLRB No. 73, will be enforced. The critical factual determinations upon which the Board based its decision are clearly supported by substantial evidence.
We reject the respondent's contention that the aggrieved employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies which the respondent urges were available under a collective bargaining agreement, consummated after the unfair labor practice had occurred. "Where the facts create both an arbitrable dispute and a possible unfair labor practice, the Board has discretion to issue a complaint or to defer action until an arbitration has been completed." NLRB v. Thor Power Tool Co., 351 F.2d 584, 587 (7th Cir. 1965). See also NLRB v. Strong, 393 U.S. 357, 360-362, 89 S.Ct. 541, 21 L.Ed. 2d 546 (1969). Moreover, the respondent, in its exceptions to the Examiner's findings and recommendations, did not, with adequate specificity, object to any failure on the Examiner's part to find that the grievance procedure was applicable to the controversy. Nor in its exceptions did the respondent make any other reference to its present contention in this respect. See 29 C.F.R. § 102.46(b) (1969). See also NLRB v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, 350, 73 S.Ct. 287, 97 L.Ed. 377 (1953); NLRB v. Giustina Bros. Lumber Co., 253 F.2d 371, 374 (9th Cir. 1958).
* Honorable Robert J. Kelleher, United States District Judge, Los Angeles, California, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Detroit Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 344, Intern. Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. City of Detroit
...(CA 9, 1974), cert. den. 419 U.S. 828, 95 S.Ct. 47, 42 L.Ed.2d 52 (1974). See NLRB v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforced Iron Workers Union, Local 378, 473 F.2d 816 (CA 9, 1973) (implicitly upholding the doctrine). The First Circuit upheld a Board order defer......
-
Woodside v. U.S.
... ... in Stencel, a Captain in the Missouri National Guard, was injured when the life-support system ... 32 C.F.R. § 984.2. The Club must have a Board of Governors which has a voting majority of ... ...
-
Associated Press v. NLRB
...other courts have acknowledged the doctrine with apparent approval, see, e. g., NLRB v. Int. Assn of Bridge, Struc., Ornamental & Reinforced Iron Wkrs Union, Local 378, 9 Cir., 473 F. 2d 816 (1973); Lodge 1327, Int. Assn of Machinists & Aerospace Wkrs v. Fraser & Johnston Co., 9 Cir., 454 F......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Southwest Sec. Equipment Corp.
...1273, 1276 (9th Cir.1975) (exceptions filed 7 months after filing deadline had passed held insufficient); NLRB v. International Association of Bridge Workers, 473 F.2d 816, 817 We conclude, then, that Southwest filed timely exceptions to the ALJ's report. Therefore, the merits of the hiring......