Court Opinion

ID: 9636609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:35:16.800246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:47.278712
License: Public Domain

STEPHENS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
While I am in general agreement with the opinion prepared by Judge Haney, there is one statement therein to which I wish especially to refer. I quote from the opinion:
“Respondents contend that back pay may be awarded only with reinstatement, and since Armstrong cannot be reinstated, no back pay may be awarded. We think this-argument is partially sound. As said in National Labor Relations Bd. v. Carlisle Lumber Co., 9 Cir., supra, 99 F.2d 537, the act does not ‘permit an award of back pay without reinstatement’ but the controlling time with respect to the ‘reinstatement’ provision is the ‘time of the Board’s order’. (Page 538). Since Armstrong could have been reinstated when the Board’s order was. made, back pay could properly be awarded.”
In my concurring opinion in National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 95 F.2d 533, 543, my divergent views on the subject of back pay with or without reinstatement are pointed out, and I do not wish any expression in this case to be taken as a recession therefrom. See National Labor Relations Board v. Fan-steel Metallurgical Corporation, 59 S.Ct-490, 83 L.Ed.-.