Case Name: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST & SAVINGS ASS'N
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1945-01-24
Citations: 147 F.2d 287
Docket Number: No. 9784
Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST & SAVINGS ASS’N.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 147
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST & SAVINGS ASS’N.
No. 9784.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan. 24, 1945.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 21,1945.
Alvin J. Rockwell, Gen. Counsel, and Malcolm F. Halliday, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers and L. N. D. Wells, Jr. Attys., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., and Maurice J. Nicoson, Regional Atty., NLRB, of Los Angeles, Cal., and John P. Jennings, Reg. Atty., NLRB, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Louis Ferrari, of San Francisco, Cal., Edmund Nelson, of Los Angeles, Cal., and G. D. Schilling, of San Francisco, Cal. (Herbert W. Erskine and Kenneth M. Johnson, both of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for respondent.
Before WILBUR, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before us on a petition of the National Labor Relations Board to adjudge the respondent in contempt of a provision of our enforcement decree relating to the reinstatement of an employee named Washer. NLRB v. Bank of America, 9 Cir., 130 F.2d 624. The employee was reinstated but was subsequently discharged for the ostensible reason that he was actively prosecuting a libel suit against the respondent, filed after the entry of the Board's order and prior to our own decision.
The respondent has answered the petition and the Board has filed a reply. In these pleadings certain controversial matters are developed but the controversies are primarily, if not entirely, concerned with inferences to be drawn from facts themselves not substantially in dispute. Acr cordingly, the matter may appropriately be disposed of on the pleadings.
On the whole showing we are not persuaded that respondent has acted otherwise than in good faith, or that its conduct in discharging the named employee was in contempt of the letter or spirit of our decree.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.