Case Name: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL REINFORCED IRON WORKERS, RIGGERS & MACHINERY MOVERS, LOCAL UNION 377, AFL-CIO, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1972-02-17
Citations: 454 F.2d 1175
Docket Number: No. 71-1824
Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL REINFORCED IRON WORKERS, RIGGERS & MACHINERY MOVERS, LOCAL UNION 377, AFL-CIO, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 454
Pages: 1175–1176

Head Matter:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL REINFORCED IRON WORKERS, RIGGERS & MACHINERY MOVERS, LOCAL UNION 377, AFL-CIO, Respondent.
No. 71-1824.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 17, 1972.
Eugene G. Goslee, Acting General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Warren M. Davi-son, Deputy Asst. General Counsel, Steven C. Kahn, Washington, D. C., Roy O. Hoffman, Director Reg. 20, NLRB, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Victor J. Van Bourg, of Levy & Van Bourg, Int’l Ass’n of Bridge Structural Local Union 377, San Francisco, Cal., Richard J. Bettencourt, San Jose, Cal., Judson Steel Corp., Emeryville, Cal., for respondent.
Before HAMLEY, ELY, and TRASK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The petitioning Board issued an Order based upon its finding that the respondent union had violated section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. This conclusion followed the Board's determination that the respondent had attempted to cause, and did cause, am employer to discharge one of its employees because of the latter's non-membership in the Union. The Board's Order is reported at 189 NLRB No. 14, 1971 CCH NLRB 22,838 (1971).
Our review of the record convinces us that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's critical factual determinations. Accordingly, its Petition for Enforcement is granted, and its Order will be
Enforced.