A. Dariano & Sons, Inc., a California Corporation v. District Council of Painters No. 33, and Northern California Painters Administrative Fund, Inc.

Good Law
869 F.2d 514·1989 WL 18891·130 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2890·1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 2723
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 8, 198987-2799California2,998 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldisert, J.

The question arising here is whether a determination by the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “the Board”) that A. Dariano & Sons, Inc. (“A. Dariano”) and Dariano Brothers, Inc. (“Dariano Brothers”) were not common, single or joint employers, precluded an arbitrator in a subsequent proceeding from concluding that Dariano Brothers was the alter ego of A. Dariano for the purpose of employee representation. In Carpenters Local Union No. 1478 v. Stevens, 743 F.2d 1271 (9th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 471 U.S. 1015 , 105 S.Ct. 2018 , 85 L.Ed.2d 300 (1985) we held that when a Regional Director had determined that two employer entities were neither alter egos nor single employers, the supremacy doctrine precluded a subsequent arbitration proceeding from holding to the contrary. Id. at 1278-79 (citing Carey v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 375 U.S. 261, 272 , 84 S.Ct. 401, 409 , 11 L.Ed.2d 320 (1964)). In this case we must decide whether the teaching and holding of Stevens apply where the Regional Director decided in favor of the employer on only the single or joint employer doctrine and in ipsis verbis did not address the alter ego doctrine. We hold that, under…

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.