Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Carda Hotels, Inc., 604 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Carda Hotels, Inc., 604 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Marshall Jackson (ca7, 1982-09-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Marshall Jackson
7th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
That is precisely the rationale of all but one of the cases relied on by the majority opinion: Saniti, 604 F.2d at 605 (witnesses able to identify clothing on the person in the photograph'— clothing unavailable to the jury for its comparison — as belonging to defendant); Young Buffalo, 591 F.2d at 513 (same); Boirelli (stepfather with whom defendant lived for five years, moving only a few days before robbery, held “in a much better position than the jury to give an opinion” because of defendant’s significantly altered appearance between time of robbery and trial); Ingram, 600 F.2d at…
cited Cited "see, e.g." National Labor Relations Board v. Sierra Development Company
9th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also N.L.R.B. v. Carda Hotels, Inc., 604 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1979).
cited Cited "see, e.g." National Labor Relations Board v. Sierra Development Co.
9th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also N.L.R.B. v. Carda Hotels, Inc., 604 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
National Labor Relations Board, and Hotel-Motel-Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union Local 86, Hotel& Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, Afl-Cio, Intervenor
v.
Carda Hotels, Inc., D/B/A Holiday Hotel & Casino
77-2312.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 1, 1979.
604 F.2d 605
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

604 F.2d 605

102 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2484, 86 Lab.Cas. P 11,536

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
and
Hotel-Motel-Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union Local
86, Hotel& Restaurant Employees & Bartenders
International Union, AFL-CIO, Intervenor,
v.
CARDA HOTELS, INC., d/b/a Holiday Hotel & Casino, Respondent.

No. 77-2312.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 24, 1979.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 1, 1979.

Eric G. Moskowitz, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

William W. Wertz, Severson, Werson, Berke & Melchior, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.

An Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.

Before ELY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and EAST,[*] District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 160(c), the National Labor Relations Board has petitioned for enforcement of its Order against respondent, Carda Hotels, Inc. The Hotel-Motel-Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 86, has intervened in favor of enforcement. The Board's Decision and Order, finding employer violations of sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act,[1] is reported at 228 N.L.R.B. No. 108 (1977). The Board's Order must be enforced.

2

The central issues raised by this appeal have recently been squarely addressed and resolved. See N.L.R.B. v. Tahoe Nugget, Inc., 584 F.2d 293 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 2847, 61 L.Ed.2d 290 (1979); Sahara-Tahoe Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 581 F.2d 767 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 2837, 61 L.Ed.2d 284 (1979). The current case and both of the cited cases arose from the same factual setting. Our two prior decisions very clearly hold that the Union enjoyed a presumption of majority support arising from voluntary recognition of the Union and that the presumption survived the employers' withdrawal from a multi-employer bargaining unit in 1974. Tahoe Nugget, supra, 584 F.2d at 302-04; Sahara-Tahoe, supra, 581 F.2d at 771. Both cases also rejected the employers' claims that they had established a good faith reasonable doubt that the Union lacked majority status at the time the companies refused to bargain. Tahoe Nugget, supra, 584 F.2d at 305-08; Sahara-Tahoe, supra, 581 F.2d at 771-72. Relying upon clearly applicable precedent, we reject the respondent's arguments, arguments that essentially mirror those previously advanced by the employers in Tahoe Nugget and Sahara-Tahoe.

3

Other issues herein presented are without merit.

The Board's Order will be

4

ENFORCED.

*

The Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge, District of Oregon, sitting by designation

1

29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and 158(a)(5)