Kaiser Engineers v. National Labor Relations Board

This action is before the court pursuant to Sections 10(e) and 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act (hereinafter, the Act), 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e), (f), authorizing review of final orders of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter, the Board).

On September 30, 1974, the Board ruled that Kaiser Engineers had violated sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(1), (a)(3), by discharging a civil engineer, one David Allen, and by coercively interrogating and threatening to discipline other employees.

Kaiser Engineers has petitioned this court for review of the Board’s ruling, asking that it be set aside. The Board has cross-petitioned for enforcement of the order.

*1382 The facts are to the effect that at a June, 1973, meeting of the Civil Engineering Society, composed of Kaiser Engineers employees, Allen informed members that Bechtel, a major competitor of Kaiser Engineers, was applying to the Department of Labor to ease restrictions on the importation of foreign engineers. The matter was discussed at the meeting and the conclusion reached that such action would be contrary to the interests of the engineering profession. The Society then…

Circuit Judge (dissenting):

I do not agree with the majority that the Civil Engineering Society’s lobbying with regard to national immigration policy was a protected activity under the Labor Act. Section 7 primarily protects concerted activities by employees seeking to affect the way in which their own employer treats *1387 them. Thus as a general rule, the activity must concern “a matter with respect to which the employer had the power and right to do something about.” G & W Electric Specialty Co. v. NLRB, 360 F.2d 873, 876 (7th Cir. 1966). Our court has adopted a similar test, that a protected activity must seek a specific remedy for a work-related complaint or grievance. Shelly & Anderson Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. NLRB, 497 F.2d 1200, 1202-03 (9th Cir. 1974).

It is true that section 7 protects “other concerted activities for . . . mutual aid or protection.” This has been held to include activities not directed at the immediate employer but in sympathy with a legitimate labor dispute involving some other group of employees. E.g., NLRB v. J. G. Boswell Co., 136 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1943). I do not believe the “mutual aid or protection” rationale of such cases should be…

538 F.2d 1379 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3153 , 79 Lab.Cas. P 11,513 KAISER ENGINEERS, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 74-3053. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 29, 1976. K. P. Richardson (argued), of Thelin, Marin, Johnson & Bridges, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Jay Shanklin (argued), of N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for respondent. OPINION 1 Before BROWNING and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and SWEIGERT, * District Judge. 2 SWEIGERT, District Judge. 3 This action is before the court pursuant to Sections 10(e) and 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act (hereinafter, the Act), 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e), (f), authorizing review of final orders of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter, the Board). 4 On September 30, 1974, the Board ruled that Kaiser Engineers had violated sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(1), (a)(3), by discharging a civil engineer, one David Allen, and by coercively interrogating and threatening to discipline other employees. 5 Kaiser Engineers has petitioned this court for review of the Board's ruling, asking that it be set aside. The Board has cross-petitioned for…