Case ID: f-appx_692/html/0462-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SPACE NEEDLE, LLC, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Space Needle, LLC, Respondent.
    No. 15-70520, No. 15-70630
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 8, 2017 Seattle, Washington
    Filed June 13, 2017
    William Tracy Grimm, Esquire, Attorney, Selena C. Smith, Attorney, Brian P. Lundgren, Davis Grimm Payne & Marra, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner
    Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Joel Heller, Kira Dellinger Vol, NLRB—National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Space Needle, LLC petitions for review, and the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) cross-petitions for enforcement, of the Board’s order finding that Space Needle violated Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) and (1), by failing to recall servers Julia Dube and Tracey McCauley from layoff. We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) and (f), and we affirm.

We are required to uphold the Board’s findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. E. Bay Auto. Council v. N.L.R.B., 483 F.3d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 2007). “[I]nferenees drawn by the Board should not be replaced by our own, if the record supplies a reasonable basis to support those drawn by the Board.” N.L.R.B. v. Winkel Motors, Inc., 443 F.2d 38, 40 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam).

The standard of review drives our decision here. Based on the ALJ’s credibility determinations, the temporal sequence of events, the conduct of the parties, and the corroborating testimony, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusions that the Board made its prima facie showing that Dube’s protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the failure to recall Dube and McCauley and that Space Needle failed to demonstrate that it would have taken the same action regardless of Dube’s union activity. Frankl ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. HTH Corp., 693 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2012).

Accordingly, Space Needle’s petition for review is DENIED and the Board’s cross-application for enforcement is GRANTED with respect to the matters addressed in this disposition.

Each party shall pay its own costs on appeal. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . On June 6, 2017, we granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss all other issues raised in this appeal.