National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Hotel Development Venture, D/B/A Holiday Inn Palo Alto-Stanford

951 F.2d 361 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. PACIFIC HOTEL DEVELOPMENT VENTURE, d/b/a Holiday Inn Palo Alto-Stanford, Respondent. No. 90-70438. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 11, 1991. Decided Dec. 13, 1991. 1 Before TANG and TROTT, Circuit Judges and BREWSTER, * District Judge: 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 The National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") seeks enforcement of its order requiring Pacific Hotel Development Venture, d/b/a Holiday Inn Palo-Alto--Stanford ("Pacific Hotel"), to bargain with Teamsters Local 856 (the "Union") despite the pre-election, pro-union activities of Carlos Gonzales ("Gonzales"), who may have been a statutory supervisor. The NLRB found that Pacific Hotel violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") ( 29 U.S.C. § 158 (5), (1)). 1 4 Pacific Hotel argues that Gonzales, the "lead banquet captain," was a statutory…