Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. BERTON KIRSHNER, INC., Respondent, 1975 — 523 F.2d 1046 · caselaw · US
General
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. BERTON KIRSHNER, INC., Respondent
523 F.2d 1046·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1975
Before WRIGHT and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and POWELL, District Judge.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. BERTON KIRSHNER, INC., Respondent.
No. 74-2022.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 23, 1975.
Charles P. Donnelly, Atty., N.L.R.B. (argued), Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Stuart P. Herman (argued), Beverly Hills, Cal., for respondent.
Honorable Charles L. Powell, Senior United States District Judge, Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. Judge Powell concurred in the opinion as written but died before it could be filed.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
OPINION
Before WRIGHT and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and POWELL, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This is an application of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) for enforcement of its order against respondent. The Board’s decision and order are reported at 209 N.L.R.B. No. 170.
A review of the entire record shows the employer Berton Kirshner, Inc. was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 158) in that it interfered with and coerced its employees in preventing a free and open union election.
The Board revised a portion of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and findings. On April 4, 1974 its Decision, Order and Direction of Second Election was entered.
The Order will be enforced.