NLRB v. Lozano Enterprises, 18205.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 18205.,18205. |
| Citation | 356 F.2d 483 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LOZANO ENTERPRISES, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Melvin J. Welles, Peter M. Giesey, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Frank Simpson, III, Don T. Hibner, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Before CHAMBERS and BARNES, Circuit Judges, and CURTIS, District Judge.
The Lozano Enterprises, publisher of the Spanish newspaper, La Opinion, in Los Angeles, petitions this court to set aside a back pay order of the National Labor Relations Board awarding to Jose Villasenor, a night-shift linotype operator for La Opinion, the total sum of $11,980.90 in back pay plus six per cent interest until paid. The back pay order resulted after a hearing as to the amount necessary "to make the employee whole" following unlawful discharge for union activity.
Opposition to the total back pay allotted by the order of the National Labor Relations Board is predicated upon four basic contentions:
1. Villasenor failed to exercise due diligence in seeking other employment thereby decreasing the total amount due him from his employer.
2. The total amount due from the employer should be diminished by the total amount of money received by him from the Union during his unemployment.1
3. The back pay award should be reduced during the time of his unemployment when he was attending school in an attempt to learn the English language.
4. The back pay award should be reduced by the amount of wages he would have received from the Forum Cafeteria had he not quit his job.
After the affirmance by this court of the order of the National Labor Relations Board requiring the reinstatement of the discharged employee based upon a finding that the employer had been guilty of discriminatory practices,2 a dispute arose, not as to the total amount of earnings of the discharged employee had he remained on the job, but as to whether certain deductions should be made from the total amount. The trial examiner found that the employee had used due diligence in trying to find employment. He also found, in effect, that only the amount of actual wages earned by the employee on other jobs should be deducted.
An examination of the transcript reveals that the findings of the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. American Compress Warehouse
...3 Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers, 151 NLRB 972, 974; Lozano Enterprises, 152 NLRB 258, 260, n. 8, enforced, 9 Cir. 1966, 356 F.2d 483. 4 See NLRB v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 5 Cir. 1966, 358 F.2d 94; Marshfield Steel Co. v. NLRB, 8 Cir. 1963, 324 F.2d 5 M. J. McC......
-
Lucky Cab Company and Industrial, Technical and Professional Employees Union, Local 4873
...mem. as modified 835 F.2d 1436 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied 487 U.S. 1235 (1988); and Lozano Enterprises, 152 NLRB 258, 263 (1965), enfd. 356 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1966). See also J.J. Cassone Bakery, 356 NLRB 951, 956 (2011) (“What constitutes reasonable efforts depends upon the circumstance......