Opinion

Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

  • 310 F.3d 209
  • 354 U.S. App. D.C. 13
  • 171 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2269
  • 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23721
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Filed
Nov 15, 2002
Status
Published
Author
Sentelle
On the bench
Sentelle, Rogers, Garland
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.4%

stating that this court "'review[s] the Board’s factual conclusions' only for 'substantial evidence,’ and must ‘uphold the Board’s application of law to facts unless arbitrary or otherwise erroneous’ ” (quoting Harter Tomato Products Co. v. NLRB, 133 F.3d 934, 937 (D.C.Cir.1998))

How later courts described this case

  • stating that this court "'review[s] the Board’s factual conclusions' only for 'substantial evidence,’ and must ‘uphold the Board’s application of law to facts unless arbitrary or otherwise erroneous’ ” (quoting Harter Tomato Products Co. v. NLRB, 133 F.3d 934, 937 (D.C.Cir.1998))

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

SENTELLE, Circuit Judge,

concurring:

While I join in the careful and thorough opinion of the court, I write separately to emphasize certain details in the strange history of this case, and to offer a suggestion to the litigants herein. Lest it remain buried in the details, it is the National *220 Labor Relations Board and not Lee Lumber that has for twelve years deprived the employees of their right to choose their own bargaining representative or to choose none at all. Because Lee Lumber twelve years ago allowed some employees to take a petition for decertification for filing on company time, and because Lee Lumber paid a few dollars of parking for those employees, the National Labor Relations Board has resorted to foot dragging, suspicious remands, and even the entry of an unlawful bargaining order to prevent the employees of Lee Lumber from exercising their rights of labor democracy under 29 U.S.C. § 157 (2000). See generally Lee Lumber and Building Material Corp. v. NLRB, 117 F.3d 1454 (D.C.Cir.1997). Because the Board’s order requires Lee Lumber to make a posting admitting its own violations, while we have no authority to order it, I would suggest to the parties that in fairness, Lee Lumber Company should also post the opinions of this court so that the employees might know that it was the unlawful acts of the Board and not those of Lee Lumber that have deprived them of free choice for these many years.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.