UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, PETITIONER,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT; FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Board's supplemental decision and order regarding back pay proceedings were legally sound and supported by substantial evidence.
This case concerns supplemental back pay proceedings following an unfair labor practice determination by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Bo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Board'S Discretion In Fashioning Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Local 777, Democratic Union Org. Comm., Seafarers Int'l Union OF N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 603 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
-
Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 445 F.2d 237 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 379 U.S. 203 (U.S. 1964)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344 (U.S. 1953)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., Inc., 396 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1969)
- E. BAY Union OF MacHinists, Local 1304, United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 322 F.2d 411 (D.C. Cir. 1963)