National Labor Relations Board v. Inland Motors

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent. The opinion of the majority enforces a Board order requiring the respondent to cease and desist from unfair labor practices, and affirmatively requires reinstatement, with back pay, of an admittedly incompetent, insolent and insubordinate employee.

The Board’s finding regarding the employee (Michael) was directly contrary to that of the Trial Examiner who specifically ruled that "Michael was discharged by Service Manager Hall because of his low production and because Michael was insolent and insubordinate and for no other reason.”

The discharged employee, Michael, was employed by Inland Motors for a short time only, less than two months. The Board has virtually conceded in its brief and on oral argument that good cause for discharge existed but asserts that union animus of the employer must have come into play.

What was Michael’s union activity? This is not a case where there was an active organizational campaign at Inland Motors.

The union involved was the Automobile Salesmen’s Union, Local #2327, International Association of Machinists. Michael was employed as a salesman for Inland Motors at Redlands, San Bernar-dino County, California.…

The petition for enforcement is granted.

The evidence permitted the drawing of conflicting inferences. Those upon which the Board based its order are not unreasonable; hence, we cannot overturn the factual conclusions upon which the Board’s order was based. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Greentree Electronics Corp., 432 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1970). See also Santa Fe Drilling Company v. N. L. R. B., 416 F.2d 725 (9th Cir. 1969).

. Judge Wright’s dissenting opinion very carefully emphasizes those facts which might have justified a different conclusion on the part of the Board. It also underscores the fact that the Board’s resolution of the controversy rested upon its interpretation and application of sharply conflicting inferences. As in most matters of this type, the record under consideration discloses circumstances which are somewhat unique; consequently, the majority concludes that no useful purpose would be served by expanding an opinion which can have little precedential value. *83 Suffice it to say that there are many indications that Michael was truly discharged because of his engagement in protected union activity and that the reasons ultimately given by the employer for his…

439 F.2d 82 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2639 , 64 Lab.Cas. P 11,549 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INLAND MOTORS, Respondent. No. 25762. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Feb. 25, 1971. Joseph C. Thackery (argued), Atty., N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Abraham Siegel, Director, N.L.R.B., Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. H. Burdette Fredericks (argued), Herbert M. Ansell, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Before ELY, HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 The petition for enforcement is granted. 2 The evidence permitted the drawing of conflicting inferences. Those upon which the Board based its order are not unreasonable; hence, we cannot overturn the factual conclusions upon which the Board's order was based. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Greentree Electronics Corp., 432 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1970). See also Santa Fe Drilling Company v. N.L.R.B., 416 F.2d 725 (9th Cir. 1969). 1 EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge (dissenting): 3 I respectfully dissent. The opinion of the majority enforces a Board order requiring the respondent to cease and desist from unfair labor practices, and affirmatively requires reinstatement, with back…