National Labor Relations Board v. Brooks Cameras, Inc.

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The majority properly defers to the NLRB’s findings regarding the employee terminations. Because the Board’s imposition of a remedy for the illegal interroga *920 tion is entitled to even greater deference, that decision should also be affirmed.

As the majority correctly notes, disagreement between the NLRB and the administrative law judge does not mean that we should treat the Board’s ultimate decision with any less deference. When, as in the •case at hand, the Board uses its experience and expertise to draw inferences from the evidence different from those drawn by the administrative law judge, the Board’s decision must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence. As we recently emphasized, “[a] disagreement between the Board and the ALJ does not alter the substantial evidence standard of review. Where, as here, the Board did not reject the ALJ’s credibility determinations but merely drew different inferences from the evidence, the deference accorded to the findings runs in favor of the Board, not the ALJ.” Alfred M. Lewis, Inc. v. NLRB, 681 F.2d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). See also Zurn Industries, Inc.…

The National Labor Relations Board (Board) petitions for enforcement, and Brooks Cameras, Inc. cross-petitions for review of a Board finding that Brooks violated section 8(a)(1), (3) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act). The Board’s inquiry focused on the circumstances surrounding Brooks’ interrogation of an employee and its termination of seven employees within four days of the demand for recognition by Warehouse Union Local 6.

Charles Wheeler, a Brooks warehouseman, spearheaded an effort to unionize Brooks’ South San Francisco warehouse in May and June of 1978. By Friday, June 23, the union had secured authorization cards from fourteen of sixteen warehouse and ’ service employees. 1 The following Monday, June 26, Albert Lannon, the union business agent, went to Brooks’ South San Francisco facility and conveyed a message to Joseph Dee, the company president, that the union represented a majority of the warehouse employees and to request that Brooks begin negotiations. Dee refused to see Lannon. Lannon left the premises and sent a telegraph reiterating the request to negotiate. By letter the same day, Dee challenged the union’s majority status and refused…

691 F.2d 912 111 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2881 , 95 Lab.Cas. P 13,850 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. BROOKS CAMERAS, INC., Respondent. No. 80-7563. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 9, 1981. Decided Nov. 4, 1982. Corinna L. Metcalf, Washington, D.C., argued for petitioner; Richard B. Bader, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. E. Fredrick Preis, Jr., Kullman, Lang, Inman & Bee, New Orleans, La., for respondent. Petition from the National Labor Relations Board. Before POOLE and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge. * POOLE, Circuit Judge. 1 The National Labor Relations Board (Board) petitions for enforcement, and Brooks Cameras, Inc. cross-petitions for review of a Board finding that Brooks violated section 8(a)(1), (3) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act). The Board's inquiry focused on the circumstances surrounding Brooks' interrogation of an employee and its termination of seven employees within four days of the demand for recognition by Warehouse Union Local 6. 2 Charles Wheeler, a Brooks warehouseman, spearheaded an effort to unionize Brooks' South San Francisco warehouse in May and June of 1978. By…