# National Labor Relations Board v. Brooks Cameras, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · November 4, 1982 · 691 F.2d 912

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469859

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. BROOKS CAMERAS, INC., Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 4, 1982
- **Citations:** 691 F.2d 912; 111 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2881; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24316
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Reinhardt
- **Judges:** Poole, Reinhardt, Burns
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469859

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “the Board is not required to accept an employer’s self-serving declarations even when credited by the administrative law judge, but may draw its own inferences, giving such statements the weight it deems appropriate”

## Opinion text

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The majority properly defers to the NLRB’s findings regarding the employee terminations. Because the Board’s imposition of a remedy for the illegal interroga *920 tion is entitled to even greater deference, that decision should also be affirmed.
As the majority correctly notes, disagreement between the NLRB and the administrative law judge does not mean that we should treat the Board’s ultimate decision with any less deference. When, as in the •case at hand, the Board uses its experience and expertise to draw inferences from the evidence different from those drawn by the administrative law judge, the Board’s decision must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence. As we recently emphasized, “[a] disagreement between the Board and the ALJ does not alter the substantial evidence standard of review. Where, as here, the Board did not reject the ALJ’s credibility determinations but merely drew different inferences from the evidence, the deference accorded to the findings runs in favor of the Board, not the ALJ.” Alfred M. Lewis, Inc. v. NLRB, 681 F.2d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). See also Zurn Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 680 F.2d 683, 694 (9th Cir. 1982); H & D, Inc. v. NLRB, 670 F.2d 120, 122 (9th Cir. 1982); NLRB v. Big Bear Supermarkets No. 3, 640 F.2d 924 , 928 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 919 , 101 S.Ct. 318 , 66 L.Ed.2d 147 (1980).
The NLRB’s expertise is especially well-suited to the selection of remedies. Consequently, we have recently held that “[t]he Board has broad discretion in fashioning remedies to effectuate the policies of the Act in light of the circumstances of each case.” Industrial, Technical & Professional Employees Division, National Maritime Union v. NLRB, 683 F.2d 305 , 308 (9th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). See also NLRB v. Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, 417 U.S. 1, 8 , 94 S.Ct. 2074, 2079 , 40 L.Ed.2d 612 (1974); East Bay Chevrolet v. NLRB, 659 F.2d 1006 , 1011 (9th Cir. 1981), The Board’s choice of a remedy is thus subject to very limited judicial review. See, e.g., Industrial, Technical & Professional Employees Division, National Maritime Union, 683 F.2d at 308; Rayner v. NLRB, 665 F.2d 970 , 976 (9th Cir. 1982). The Board’s remedy may not be disturbed “unless it can be shown that the order is a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the Act.” Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. NLRB, 319 U.S. 533, 540 , 63 S.Ct. 1214, 1218 , 87 L.Ed. 1568 (1943).
Under the appropriate standard of review, then, the NLRB’s imposition of a remedy for the unlawful interrogation should be upheld. Contrary to the majority’s assertion, the Board vigorously disputes the administrative law judge’s conclusion that the interrogation was isolated and minimal. Indeed, the Board explicitly found that although “the interrogation was addressed to only one employee, it was concerned with all warehouse employees and sought information that could be used by [Brooks] to discourage or prevent by both lawful and unlawful means the unionization of those employees.” Brooks Cameras, Inc. v. Warehouse Union Local 6, 250 N.L.R.B. 820 (1980). As the Board emphasized, “the characterization of the interrogation as ‘isolated and minimal’ is not only irrelevant but also inaccurate as well.” Id. Consequently, the Board properly found that a minimal remedy 1 was necessary to prevent the fear of similar interrogations from unlawfully discouraging union organizational efforts.
In short, the NLRB’s decision to impose a remedy for the unlawful interrogation is entitled to special deference. Where, as here, the violation is supported by substantial evidence and the selection of a remedy is the result of the Board’s special expertise, the Board’s action should be affirmed. Under the circumstances presented in this case, there is no basis for setting aside the Board’s choice of a remedy.
. The Board’s remedy in this case is directly proportionate to the employer’s violation. The Board simply ordered that Brooks “cease and desist from ... [¡Interrogating employees concerning union activities” and that Brooks post a notice of the Board’s decision. Brooks Cameras, Inc. v. Warehouse Union Local 6, 250 N.L.R.B. 820 (1980).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469859. Public record. Not legal advice.