SERVOMATION, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT

9th Cir. | 1979-08-31
No. 78-2737
Before ELY and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and EAST, District Judge.
603 F.2d 762 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1979)

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.


Holding

The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that its order met the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.


Facts & Procedural History

Servomation, Inc. petitioned for review of a National Labor Relations Board Decision and Order, and the Board cross-applied for enforcement. The Board…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 160(f), Servomation, Inc. has petitioned for review of a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, issued on July 21, 1978, and reported at 237 N.L.R.B. No. 10. The respondent Board has cross-applied for enforcement of its Order. A careful review of the entire record clearly leads us to the conclusion that the relevant findings of the Administrative Law Judge that were unanimously adopted by the Board are supported by substantial evidence.1 Additionally, we reject petitioner’s argument that the Board’s Decision and Order did not meet the requirements of Section 8(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 557(c),2 because the Board failed to state its reasons for overruling each of the exceptions to the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. As we see it, the Board satisfied the requirements of this Section in its review and adoption of the findings, conclusions, and rationale of the Administrative Law Judge. See Borek Motor Sales, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 425 F. 2d 677, 681-82 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 823, 91 S.Ct. 45, 27 L.Ed.2d 52 (1970).

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied, and the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement of its order is granted.

SO ORDERED.

. The Board concluded that one of the Administrative Law Judge’s findings, not here relevant, was without factual support in the record; thus, the Board did not adopt or rely upon it.

. That Section provides in relevant part:

The record shall show the ruling on each finding, conclusion, or exception presented. All decisions, including initial, recommended, and tentative decisions, are a part of the record and shall include a statement of—

(A) findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefor, on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw