Legal Opinion
National Labor Relations Board v. United States Postal Service
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 5, 1982No. 81-7754PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARRIS, Circuit Judge:
OVERVIEW
The National Labor Relations Board is applying for enforcement of its Decision and Order against the United States Postal Service. An Administrative Law Judge had concluded that the Postal Service violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), on several separate occasions involving Supervisor James Siller at the Oakland, California, Post Office. The Board reversed the ALJ, found violations of Section 8(a)(1), and ordered appropriate relief. United States Postal Service, 256 N.L.R.B. 78 (1981). 1 We grant enforcement of the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- National Labor Relations Board v. J. Weingarten, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Penasquitos Village, Inc., Penasquitos Gardens, Inc., Penasquitos Hills, Inc., and San Diego Leisure Life Village v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Karl Kallmann, D/B/A Love's Barbeque Restaurant, No. 62, and Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, AndCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Alfred M. Lewis, Inc. v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- National Labor Relations Board v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Company Local 1022, Communications Workers of America, Afl-Cio IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
- Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company v. National Labor Relations Board, (Two Cases) National Labor Relations Board v. The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983