National Labor Relations Board v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 640, and Its Agent, Glynn Ross

Good Law
464 F.2d 545·80 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3242·1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8363
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 18, 197271-2837California1,523 words

Opinion

Opinion

464 F.2d 545 80 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3242 , 69 Lab.Cas. P 12,902 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 640, and its agent, Glynn Ross, Respondents. No. 71-2837. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. July 18, 1972. William H. DuRoss, III, Atty. (argued), Robert A. Giannasi, Atty., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C.; C. Woodrow Greene, Director, Region 28, N.L.R.B., Albuquerque, N. M., for petitioner. A. D. Ward (argued), of Ward & Contreras, Charles E. Jones, of Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, Phoenix, Ariz., for respondents. Before CHAMBERS and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON, District Judge. * EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: 1 The National Labor Relations Board asks the court to enforce its order directing IBEW Local 640 to cease and desist from certain secondary boycott activities and to post the customary notices. The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's findings that the union violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act by threatening Phoenix electrical contractors with refusal to handle or install…

lead Opinion

Wright, J.

The National Labor Relations Board asks the court to enforce its order directing IBEW Local 640 to cease and desist from certain secondary boycott activities and to post the customary notices. The Board adopted the Trial Examiner’s findings that the union violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act by threatening Phoenix electrical contractors with refusal to handle or install materials purchased from Brown Wholesale Electrical Company and by actually refusing to handle Brown materials, for the purpose of forcing the contractors to cease doing business with Brown. We hold that substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings and we enforce the order.

Brown is a major wholesale supplier of fixtures, wiring and equipment for electrical contractors in the Phoenix area. Its employees are not represented by a labor organization. The contractors involved here belong to the Phoenix division of the National Electrical Contractors Association, which has a collective bargaining agreement with the union. Nearly all employees of the contractors are union members.

The union began to picket Brown’s place of business on November 20, 1969, as part of a…

dissent Opinion

Pregerson, J.

(dissenting) :

I respectfully dissent.

Reviewing the record as a whole, I cannot conscientiously say that the Board’s findings of violations by the union are supported by substantial evidence. Like gruel, that evidence is thin and insubstantial. Its main ingredients are suspicion and surmise. Accordingly, I would deny the Board’s petition for enforcement. See Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951).

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.