Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Foley-Wismer & Becker and Shurtleff & Andrews Construction v. National Labor Relations Board

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 28, 1982No. 80-7272Published

1ConcurrencePoole, Circuit Judge

I concur in Judge Skopil’s conclusion but only under the compulsion of this court’s en banc determination that an order of the Board quashing notice of hearing under section 10(k) proceeding is reviewable. Foley-Wismer & Becker v. NLRB, 682 F.2d 770 (9th Cir.1982) (en banc).

I thought that decision en banc to be wrong and I still believe it to be wrong. To the extent it rests upon Waterway Terminals Co. v. NLRB, 467 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1972), it is on infirm ground, for the logic of that prior decision is no more compelling today than it was 10 years ago. It was certainly inconsistent, when…

2Cases cited4 opinions

National Labor Relations Board v. Plasterers' Local Union No. 79Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
Waterway Terminals Company v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
Foley-Wismer & Becker and Shurtleff & Andrews Constructors v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
Charles M. Henderson, Regional Director of Region 19 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union Local 50, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 701, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 701, Pacific Maritime Association v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972