Opinion ID: 739940
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 10(j) Proceeding

Text: 11 In August 1994 the Regional Director petitioned the federal district court for a preliminary injunction pursuant to section 10(j) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(j), pending the resolution of the unfair labor practice complaints against New Breed filed by General Counsel with the NLRB. 12 The district court granted a temporary injunction and ordered New Breed to reinstate Maersk employees, reinstate prior working conditions, and bargain with the Unions. Aguayo v. New Breed Leasing Corp., No. 94-5196 AWT (CTx) (C.D.Cal. Aug. 22, 1994). New Breed appealed. This court affirmed the grant of the temporary injunction. Aguayo v. New Breed Leasing Corp., 46 F.3d 1138, 1138 (9th Cir.1995) (mem.) We found, however, that the district court had erred in ordering New Breed to restore former wages and conditions of employment for the Maersk employees, because at the injunctive phase of the proceedings this remedy was not necessary to protect the integrity of the collective bargaining process [or] to preserve the Board's remedial power. Id. (citing Miller v. California Pac. Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 449, 460 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc)). Accordingly, we remanded to the district court to reconsider the appropriate scope of that injunction. New Breed Leasing Corp., 46 F.3d at 1138. 13 We explained, however, that in the event the Board finds that New Breed committed an unfair labor practice by setting initial wages below the union rate, [the Board could] fashion a back pay award to remedy that harm. Id. 14