U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1977

Evergreen Helicopters, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided November 21, 1977 · Barnes, Ely, Per Curiam, Van Pelt

564 F.2d 1293; 97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2327; 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5966 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

David W. Morthland (argued), of Miller, Anderson, Nash, Yerke & Wiener, Portland, Or., for petitioner., William Wachter (argued), Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. James Wheeler (7th Cir. 1986)
National Labor Relations Board v. Lee Office Equipment (9th Cir. 1978)
Brown & Root, Inc. v. The National Labor Relations Board (5th Cir. 1981)
National Labor Relations Board v. Western Clinical Laboratory, Inc. (9th Cir. 1978)

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

*1294 PER CURIAM:

The Board’s Decision and Order is reported at 223 N.L.R.B. 317 (1976). The employer has filed a Petition to Review the Board’s Order, and the Board cross-applies for the Order’s enforcement.

The facts giving rise to the controversy are fully set forth in the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, included as a portion of the Board’s Decision and Order. The legal conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, adopted by the Board, with two modifications not here material, appear in the Board’s Decision and Order, supra, at 320.

While the employer’s arguments are persuasive, we are not persuaded that the Board’s Order should be disturbed. In United Ass’n of Journeymen & A., etc. v. N.L.R.B., 553 F.2d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1977), we wrote:

We have recently reiterated that “[t]he Board’s discretion in fashioning remedies which can be fairly said to ‘effectuate the policies’ of the Act is broad.” NLRB v. International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, Local No. 13, 549 F.2d 1346, 1354 (9th Cir. 1977). Furthermore, the Board’s use of a back pay remedy will not be disturbed in the absence of clear abuse of discretion. Id., citing Virginia Electric and Power Co. v. NLRB, 319 U.S. 533, 540, 63 S.Ct. 1214, 87 L.Ed. 1568 (1943).”

The employers’ Petition to Review is rejected, and, upon the Board’s cross-application, the Board’s Order will be

ENFORCED.

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