Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Str, Inc., D/B/A Sound Tech. Rsch., 549 F.2d 641 (9th Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Str, Inc., D/B/A Sound Tech. Rsch., 549 F.2d 641 (9th Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: National Labor Relations Board v. FedEx Freight, Inc. (ca3, 2016-08-09)
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#20 29 C.F.R. § 102.48 cited 2× in this case · 144 total citations of statute #15 29 U.S.C. § 8 cited 1× in this case · 68 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. FedEx Freight, Inc. (2×)
3rd Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
NLRB v. STR, Inc., 549 F.2d 641, 642 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see also 1621 Route 22 West Operating Co., LLC v. NLRB, Nos. 15-2466 & 15-2586, 2016 WL 3146014 , at *7 (3d Cir. June 6, 2016) (noting that a misapplication of the National Labor Relations Act by the Board does not constitute an “extraordinary circumstance”); 3 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e);4 see Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645, 666 (1982) (“[T]he Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to review objections that were not urged before the Board … .”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. Southwest Security Equipment Corporation
9th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
See, e.g., NLRB v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, 350 , 73 S.Ct. 287, 290 , 97 L.Ed. 377 (1953) (general exception alleging only that decision was contrary to and unsupported by law held insufficient); Stephenson v. NLRB, 614 F.2d 1210, 1214-15 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (exception relying simply on Board Chairman's dissent below held too ambiguous); NLRB v. STR, Inc., 549 F.2d 641, 642 (9th Cir.1977) (complete failure to file exceptions held insufficient); NLRB v. Selvin, 527 F.2d 1273, 1276 (9th Cir.1975) (exceptions filed 7 months after filing deadline had passed held insufficient); …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. Southwest Security Equipment Corp.
9th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
See, e.g., NLRB v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, 350 , 73 S.Ct. 287, 290 , 97 L.Ed. 377 (1953) (general exception alleging only that decision was contrary to and unsupported by law held insufficient); Stephenson v. NLRB, 614 F.2d 1210, 1214-15 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (exception relying simply on Board Chairman’s dissent below held too ambiguous); NLRB v. STR, Inc., 549 F.2d 641, 642 (9th Cir.1977) (complete failure to file exceptions held insufficient); NLRB v. Selvin, 527 F.2d 1273, 1276 (9th Cir.1975) (exceptions filed 7 months after filing deadline had passed held insufficient)…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Idaho Falls Consolidated Hospitals, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
9th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
NLRB v. STR, Inc., 549 F.2d 641, 642 (9th Cir.1977). 2.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Local 900, International Union of Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board
D.C. Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
See, e.g., NLRB v. Cardox Div. of Chemetron Corp., 699 F.2d 148 , 153 n. 10 (3d Cir.1983); GAIU Local 13-B, 682 F.2d at 311-12 ; Hedstrom Co. v. NLRB, 629 F.2d 305, 312 (3d Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 996 , 101 S.Ct. 1699 , 68 L.Ed.2d 196 (1981); NLRB v. STR, Inc., 549 F.2d 641, 642 (9th Cir.1977) (per curiam); Glaziers’ Local No. 558 v. NLRB, 408 F.2d 197 , 202-03 (D.C.Cir.1969).
cited Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. Sambo's Restaurant, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
NLRB v. STR, Inc., 549 F.2d 641, 642 (9th Cir. 1977) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Arthur N. Stephenson v. National Labor Relations Board
9th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
B. v. STR, Inc., 549 F.2d 641, 642 (9th Cir. 1975). 3 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
STR, INC., D/B/A Sound Technology Research, Respondent
76-1733.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 20, 1977.
549 F.2d 641
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B.; Washington D.C., for petitioner., Archie G. Parker, of Rowland & Parker, Sacramento, Cal., for respondent.
Wright, Kilkenny, Choy.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations .Board (the “Board”) petitions this court to enforce an[*642] order issued against STR, Inc. (the “Company”) arising from alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act, subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of Section 8 [29 U.S.C. § 158] (unfair labor practices). Since the violations allegedly occurred in California, this Court has jurisdiction under Section 10(e) [29 U.S.C. § 160(e)]. The Board’s decision and order are reported at 221 N.L. R.B. No. 103.

The Company’s arguments rest on the premise that the Board erred in finding that the Company had suspended one Art Munguia indefinitely, rather than for only one day as the Administrative Law Judge had found. The Company acknowledges that normally this court does not evaluate the evidence supporting the Board’s decision unless the losing party filed timely objections to the Board’s order. The Company argues that the Board’s disagreement with the Administrative Law Judge is so profound that the Company’s subsequent failure to file objections is excused because of the “extraordinary circumstances” provision of Section 10(e) [29 U.S.C. § 160(e)].

The Board’s regulations permit parties to file motions within 20 days after service of a Board decision for the purpose of seeking reconsideration of the decision. [29 C.F.R. § 102.48(d)]. This court, in N.L.R.B. v. Selvin, 527 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir.1975), held that, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the Court would deem uncontroverted the Board’s findings of fact unless the objecting party filed objections pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 102.48(d). A review of the cases shows that the “extraordinary circumstances” provision of Section 10(e) [29 U.S.C. § 160(e)] (excusing the losing party’s failure to make objections to the Board) has been applied only in rare cases, as when a snow storm closes the Board’s offices (N.L.R.B. v. International Woodworkers, 238 F.2d 378 (9th Cir.1956)), or when a telephone and taxi strike prevent delivery of the objections (N.L.R.B. v. Central Mercedita, Inc., 273 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1959)), or when an unusually early mail pickup delays delivery (N.L.R.B. v. Marshall Maintenance Corp., 320 F.2d 641 (3d Cir. 1963)).

The facts before us are not extraordinary and the Company’s failure to file an exception should not be excused. The only material disagreement here was over the issue whether Munguia had been suspended indefinitely or only for a day. The complaint gave the Company more than ample notice that the Board would be examining the circumstances of Munguia’s departure. Moreover, the circumstances that excused the losing party’s failure to object in other cases were exceptional because they caused the party to omit filing timely objections, not because the Board’s order was itself extraordinary. The Company advances no explanation for its failure to object and, therefore, the Board’s finding that the Company suspended Munguia indefinitely because of his protected activities must be taken as established.

This finding leads to the conclusion that the Company committed an unfair labor practice by suspending an employee for his union activities, in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) [29 U.S.C. §§ 8(a)(1), (3)]. In such cases an order of reinstatement and backpay lies within the powers of the Board. (Phelps Dodge Corp v. N.L.R.B, 313 U.S. 177, 188, 61 S.Ct. 845, 85 L.Ed. 1271 (1941); Bon Hennings Logging Co. v. N.L.R.B., 308 F.2d 548 (9th Cir.1962); see 29 U.S.C. § 160(c)).

The Board’s Order will be enforced.