Case Name: LOS ANGELES NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 69, et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, and Los Angeles Herald Examiner, Division of the Hearst Corporation, and San Francisco Examiner, Division of the Hearst Corporation, Intervenors
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-06-07
Citations: 443 F.2d 1173
Docket Number: No. 26534
Parties: LOS ANGELES NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 69, et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, and Los Angeles Herald Examiner, Division of the Hearst Corporation, and San Francisco Examiner, Division of the Hearst Corporation, Intervenors.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 443
Pages: 1173–1174

Head Matter:
LOS ANGELES NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 69, et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, and Los Angeles Herald Examiner, Division of the Hearst Corporation, and San Francisco Examiner, Division of the Hearst Corporation, Intervenors.
No. 26534.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 7, 1971.
Stephen Reinhardt (argued), George E. Bodle, Daniel Fogel, Lester G. Ostrov, of Bodle, Fogel, Julber & Reinhardt, Herbert M. Ansell, of Ansell & Ansell, Duane B. Beeson, of Brundage, Neyhart, Grodin & Beeson, Eugene Miller, Paul Crost, of Brundage, Neyhart, Miller, Ross & Reich, Leo Geffner, of Geffner & Satzman, Los Angeles, Cal., Irwin Leff, of Rosenthal & Leff, Duane Bee-son, of Neyhart, Grodin & Beeson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Baruch A. Fellner (argued), Atty., for NLRB, Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., Richard C. White, Los Angeles, Cal. (argued), for intervenor.
O’Melveny & Myers, Ralph E. Kennedy, Regional Director, Los Angeles, Garret McEnerney, II, R. Barry Churton, of Cooper, White & Cooper, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, ELY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The petition for review is denied.
The Board's cross application for enforcement is granted. See the Board's opinion, reported at 185 NLRB No. 25.