U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1975

National Labor Relations Board v. Silver Bay Local Union No. 962, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, Afl-Cio

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 28, 1975 · Koelsch, Carter, Wright

510 F.2d 1364 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Stanley Zirkin (argued), N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner., Lawrence R. Schwerin (argued), Donaldson, Hafer, Cassidy & Price, Seattle, Wash., for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision. The 5 that cite it most often are listed here.

National Labor Relations Board v. Nevis Industries, Inc. (9th Cir. 1981)
National Labor Relations Board v. Nevis Industries, Inc. (9th Cir. 1981)
National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 725 (5th Cir. 1978)
National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 725 of the United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry (5th Cir. 1978)
Local 814, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board (D.C. Cir. 1976)

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

OPINION

EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:

Our opinion of May 22, 1974, vacated that portion of the Board’s order which awarded back pay to a supervisor and remanded to the Board for further proceedings. NLRB v. Silver Bay Local Union No. 962, 498 F.2d 26 (9th Cir. 1974). We said, quoting from NLRB v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 925, 460 F.2d 589, at 605 (5th Cir.):

“If the ruling was inadvertent, the matter will stop there. If the Board is still of the opinion that [Niesen is entitled to back pay], the facts which distinguish this case from the Board’s prior decisions should be articulated. If this case represents a change in Board policy, the new policy should be explicated. Only then can this court properly consider respondents’ contention that the Board has exceeded its statutory authority.”

498 F.2d at 29.

By its Supplemental Decision and Order of December 9, 1974 [215 NLRB 79], the Board has explained its policy and the basis of its determination and has reaffirmed its earlier order of August 7, 1972.

We adopt and approve the Board’s decision and direct that it be enforced in full.

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