National Labor Relations Board v. Harrah's Club

The Board has submitted a judgment for our approval, pursuant to our decision in this case (NLRB v. Harrah’s Club, 9 Cir., 1968, 403 F.2d 865 ). Respondent objects on two grounds, first, that the judgment is premature, and second, that portions of the proffered judgment are overly broad. See Rule 19, Fed.R.App.Proc.

The argument that the judgment is premature rests upon the fact that we djd not specifically direct the enforcement of any part of the Board>s order, but rather stated:

One issue in no way depends upon the result of the further hearing, the finding that two employees had been discriminatorily discharged in violation of section 8(a) (1) and (3). A second issue does depend, in part, on the result of the hearing, the finding that discontinuance of “toking” was both discriminatorily motivated (violating section 8(a) (3)) and a failure to bargain collectively about a mandatory subject (violating section 8(a) (5)). The failure to bargain charge rests upon the validity of the election. The Board’s proffered judgment would reach the violations stemming from the discharges and would also require respondent both to make the employees whole for lost tokes and to reinstate the…