Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1974

National Labor Relations Board v. Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board v. Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, Etc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 7, 1974 · Koelsch, Wright, Trask
499 F.2d 129 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D. C. and Roy 0. Hoffman, Director, Region 20 NLRB, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner., Victor J. Van Bourg, Michael B. Roger, of Levy, Van Bourg & Hackler, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.

National Labor Relations Board v. Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, Etc.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

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:

This is an application of the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) for enforcement of its order against Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO (“the Union”). The Board’s decision and order are reported at 206 N.L. R.B. No. 8 (1973).

Based on our review of the record as a whole, the Board’s finding that the Union engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)), is supported by substantial evidence.

The Board may properly enter a broad order such as this one here if a Union has demonstrated a “proclivity” to violate the secondary boycott provisions of the Act. N. L. R. B. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local No. 70, 490 F.2d 87, 88 (9th Cir. 1973); N. L. R. B. v. Local 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 454 F.2d 875, 879 (9th Cir. 1972). The record shows that this respondent has a history of similar violations, including one fully litigated decision (186 N. L. R. B. 432 (1970), enforced by this court in an unreported decision filed January 10, 1972), and settlement stipulations in two separate cases (Nos. 20-CC-1143, 1273). The prior settlement stipulations may be treated as equivalent to fully adjudicated decisions of the Board enforced by this court, in accordance with the terms of the stipulations.

The Board’s order will be enforced.

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