Opinion ID: 3051931
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We uphold an NLRB decision “when substantial evidence supports its findings of fact and when the agency applies the law correctly.” Sever v. NLRB, 231 F.3d 1156, 1164 (9th Cir. 2000). Although the Board’s construction of the National Labor Relations Act is subject to deference, we review its decision to determine whether the Board erred as a matter of law or proceeded from an erroneous premise. NLRB v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 473 U.S. 61, 68, 78 (1985).4 4 Normally, the “Board’s construction of terms in the (the NLRA) that establish its statutory jurisdiction must be upheld if that construction is ‘reasonably defensible.’ ” Micronesian Telecomm. Corp. v. NLRB, 820 F.2d 1097, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 891 (1984)). However, such deference does not apply to the Board’s interpretation of Jacksonville Terminal. Jacksonville Terminal accommodates two distinct statutory schemes of labor relations by creating an exemption from NLRB jurisdiction for primarily RLA disputes. The applicability of that exemption — unlike interpretations of the NLRA terms that establish the NLRB’s jurisdiction — is not a subject that Congress has committed to the Board. See Sure-Tan, 467 U.S. at 891. AIR LINE PILOTS ASS’N v. NLRB 5115