Task: songer_injunct

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on the validity of an injunction or the denial of an injunction or a stay of injunction favor the appellant?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM.
Our decision in this case was deferred to await the outcome of cases pending in the Supreme Court which have now been decided.
We think that the findings of the Board that the Union’s maintenance of the agreements with Portsmouth Contractors Association and the employer, Consolidated Construction Company, and the .practice under them constituted a violation of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) and resulted in denying a job to Walter Pennington, are supported by substantial evidence.
The remedy was fashioned by the Board after Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors, 119 N.L.R.B. 883, and included the minimum safeguards therein stipulated as well as an order against the Union to reimburse the employees of Consolidated Construction Company for all monies illegally exacted from them.
The Supreme Court held that the Act did not authorize the Board to so fashion the remedy or order the reimbursement by the Union of the dues and fees paid to it by the employees.
In our opinion, however, the order to make Walter Pennington whole for any loss in pay was within the province of the Board and was justified under the evidence in the record.
Applying the decisions of the Supreme Court, Paragraph I. (a) 1. of the Order of the Board must be limited to discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by any agreement, act or practice that encourages union membership including any that conditions the hiring of applicants for employment or the retention of employees in their jobs on union membership or requires employers to grant preference to members of the union in respect to hire or tenure.
Paragraph I. (a) 2. of the Order reading as follows is deleted;
“2. Entering into, performing, maintaining, or otherwise giving effect to any agreement, or arrangement with the Portsmouth Contractors Association, its successor, Southern Olyo Contractors Association, the Consolidated Construction Company, or any other employer over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction which provides for an exclusive hiring hall but does not explicitly provide for the minimum safeguards stated in Mountain Pacific Chapter of the Associated General Contractors, 119 N.L.R.B. 883.”
Paragraph II. (b) of the Order reading as follows is deleted:
“(b) Reimburse the employees of Consolidated Construction Company for monies illegally exacted from them in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section of this Decision and Order entitled ‘The Remedy.’ ”
The notice shall be changed accordingly.
Enforcement of the Board’s Order, as modified herein, is granted.
. Local 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, 81 S.Ct. 875; National Labor Relations Board v. News Syndicate Company, 81 S.Ct. 849; International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, 81 S.Ct. 855.

Question: Did the court's ruling on the validity of an injunction or the denial of an injunction or a stay of injunction favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D