# Carpenters Local No. 33, A/w United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 26, 1989 · 873 F.2d 316

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478948

## Case

- **Full name:** CARPENTERS LOCAL NO. 33, A/W UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** May 26, 1989
- **Citations:** 873 F.2d 316; 277 U.S. App. D.C. 103; 1989 WL 37312
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Starr
- **Judges:** Wald, Starr, Ginsburg
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9478948

## Opinion text

STARR, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
The Board, it seems to me, could reasonably conclude that an “infeasibility” analy *323 sis would justify the establishment of an otherwise bona fide reserved gate system. The order before us contains intimations to this effect, as the court notes. However, after reviewing the Board’s order in its entirety, I understand it to rest more centrally on the conclusion that sufficient public access existed in this instance to satisfy the governing standard as elucidated in United Bhd. of Carpenters, Local 354 (Sharp & Tatro), 268 N.L.R.B. 382 , 389 (1983), and approved in Local Union No. 501 v. NLRB, 756 F.2d 888 , 895 (D.C.Cir.1985) (Pond Electric).
Accordingly, the central issue before us is whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision in applying its clearly established standard. In my view, that test is abundantly satisfied here. In brief, the evidence shows: (1) use of the rear entrance and nearby public parking lot by the primary employer, its employees, suppliers, and visitors; (2) use of the rear entrance and public parking lot by the building’s tenants, employees, and visitors of both, including customers of CCSI, a small business with its front entrance in the rear passageway; (3) use of the public parking lot by members of the general public; and (4) occasional pedestrian traffic from the public parking lot to the rear entrance of the Cafe La Brioche, a restaurant located next door with a back entrance near the reserved gate. Since Sharp & Tatro represents the Board’s current view of what constitutes a reasonable accommodation of the various competing interests, the foregoing evidence is more than ample to satisfy the “limited public access” standard.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478948. Public record. Not legal advice.