Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70,international Brotherhood of Teamsters,chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Ofamerica, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 490 F.2d 87
Dec. 5, 1973
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D.C., Roy O. Hoffman, Director, Region 20, NLRB, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Duane B. Beeson (argued), of Brundage, Neyhart, Grodin & Beeson, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
OPINION
Before BROWNING and ELY, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR,1 District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The petitioning Board's Decision and Order is reported at 197 NLRB No. 24. Our review of the record convinces us that the Board's critical factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence.
We need not decide whether an agreement to extend a collective bargaining contract beyond its stated term must be express to be enforceable. The trial examiner, whose findings the Board adopted, considered both verbal statements and conduct by the parties. He concluded that no contract of any kind existed during the relevant period.
The Union's alternative contention, that the new contract was effective as soon as agreement was reached, was not raised before the trial examiner or the Board. We therefore decline to consider it.
Finally, we cannot disturb the Board's broad remedy. It is supported by facts showing a proclivity by the Union to violate the same sections of the National Labor Relations Act involved here. NLRB v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S. 426, 61 S.Ct. 693, 85 L.Ed. 930 (1941); NLRB v. Brotherhood of Carpenters, 321 F.2d 126 (9th Cir. 1963).
Accordingly, the Board's Order will be enforced.
Honorable Fred M. Taylor, United States District Judge, District of Idaho, sitting by designation