U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1974

National Labor Relations Board v. Directors Guild of America, Inc., Milton Trager, Intervenor

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 12, 1974 · Koelsch, Browning, Kilkenny

494 F.2d 692 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Elliott Moore, Acting Asst. Gen. Counsel, Allison Brown, Jr. (argued) Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Abraham Siegel, Director, Region 31, N.L.R. B., Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner., William B. Haighton, (argued), Hollywood, Cal., for Directors Guild of America, Inc. of Hollywood, Cal., Jack Corinbilt (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for charging party Milton Trager (intervenor), Association of Motion Picture & Television Producers, Inc. of Hollywood, Cal.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Abilene Sheet Metal, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (5th Cir. 1980)
Abilene Sheet Metal, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (5th Cir. 1980)
Paul H. Robertson, Individual v. National Labor Relations Board (10th Cir. 1979)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The critical issues before us, and a detailed statement of the facts, are clearly delineated in the order of the Board. In re Directors Guild of America, 198 N.L. R.B. No. 103, 81 LRRM 1477 (1972). In full support of the Board’s order is In re International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industries, Local 659, etc., 197 NLRB No. 134, 81 LRRM 1223 (1972) enforced, 477 F.2d 450 (C.A.D. C. 1973), cert denied 414 U.S. 1157, 94 S. Ct. 914, 39 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974).

We have considered NLRB v. Gray Line Tours, Inc., 461 F.2d 763 (C.A.9 (1972) and Arizona Public Service Co. v. NLRB, 453 F.2d 228 (C.A.9, 1971), and other cases slanted toward respondent’s viewpoint, but find them distinguishable. In the final analysis, they turn on their own facts and cannot be used as a yardstick on a somewhat similar, yet clearly distinguishable state of facts. Except in unusual cases, we should leave the complexity of these problems to the Board’s expertise and abide by its decisions. For the reasons stated in the order of the Board, we grant the application and enforce the order.

Order enforced.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.