Case Name: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INLAND MOTORS, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-02-25
Citations: 439 F.2d 82
Docket Number: No. 25762
Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INLAND MOTORS, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 439
Pages: 82–86

Head Matter:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INLAND MOTORS, Respondent.
No. 25762.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 25, 1971.
Eugene A. Wright, Circuit Judge, dissented and filed opinion.
Joseph C. Thackery (argued), Atty., N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., Abraham Siegel, Director, N.L.R.B., Los An-geles, Cal., for petitioner.
H. Burdette Fredericks (argued), Herbert M. Ansell, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Before ELY, HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The petition for enforcement is granted.
The evidence permitted the drawing of conflicting inferences. Those upon which the Board based its order are not unreasonable; hence, we cannot overturn the factual conclusions upon which the Board's order was based. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Greentree Electronics Corp., 432 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1970). See also Santa Fe Drilling Company v. N. L. R. B., 416 F.2d 725 (9th Cir. 1969).
. Judge Wright's dissenting opinion very carefully emphasizes those facts which might have justified a different conclusion on the part of the Board. It also underscores the fact that the Board's resolution of the controversy rested upon its interpretation and application of sharply conflicting inferences. As in most matters of this type, the record under consideration discloses circumstances which are somewhat unique; consequently, the majority concludes that no useful purpose would be served by expanding an opinion which can have little precedential value. Suffice it to say that there are many indications that Michael was truly discharged because of his engagement in protected union activity and that the reasons ultimately given by the employer for his discharge, which, incidentally, were not given at the time of the discharge, were pretextual. For an adequate rebuttal to Judge Wright's opinion, see the opinion of the Board, reported at 175 NLRB No. 139.