*1 688 Bogan day be on the was to reinstated hearing of The examiner reinstatement. “going
found of that rate” as that the
date en- was this Court When $1.40. order,
forced that the Board’s we held Bogan reinstated at should have been and he made whole $1.40 that be would
by paying his him the difference between pay
actual rate of from June and $1.40 23, (the reinstated) 1954 date he was pay September 1, (the
until 1957 date his $1.40).
was increased Board to What the Bogan claiming that, inis fact is because pay
did not of receive the full benefit the increases which the other welders re-
ceived, unlawfully Respondent discrimi- against might This, true, nated him. if practice be another unfair to be labor prosecuted through channels, the usual Weinbrecht, Atty., Standau E. Thomas supplemental but it is not of the violative McDermott, Counsel, J. Associate Gen. present decree entered in the case. Mallet-Prevost, Marcel Gen. Coun- Asst. sel, B., Washington, C., N. L. R. D. for petitioner. Alley, Jr., Cody Fowler,
Granville M. Saad, Tampa, Fla., respond- Paul A. for ent. RIVES, Judge, TUTTLE,
Before Chief Judge, SIMPSON, Circuit and District Judge. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS PER CURIAM. BOARD, Petitioner, 22, 1960, In its order of March 275 v. 859, 860, F.2d this “that Court ruled PLANT CITY WELDING AND TANK City Plant is entitled to have the tran- COMPANY, Respondent. script compliance proceedings of the brought No. 18015. 3, before this Court.” On June 1960, the Board made available to Plant Appeals Court of
United States City, designation purpose for the of of Fifth Circuit. record, original the the record in the Aug. 25, 1960. compliance proceedings which, however, only pre- contained one document not viously City; viz., made to Plant available “Report Investigation Compliance a on of consisting thirty-one typed Status” of signed pages, by Holley, At- “David R. torney, National Labor Relations Board Region.” City Twelfth Plant has moved comply require to the Court the Board to 1960, 22, with the order of March con- tending brought that it is entitled to have gathered this Court the before material regional by attorney the in the course of investigation compliance of the his status *2 689 supports “report” report. prepared material of such the he said which and from investigating that, officer. “That material the The Board insists it because in the record is included not Judge RIVES, (specially Chief concur- by to or available reviewed was never ring). the adminis- the course of Board in the findings the of proceedings. agreement carefully The I trative am in with the report upon the- of the expressed based Board are in views of the First Circuit investigation up- not and Imparcial,” administrative Editorial “El L.N. Inc. v. by the investi- collected B., 1960, on gating material the R. 278 F.2d The distinc- 184. attorney now respondent which is, tion between that think, I case and this All matter in filed Court. seeks to have employer that in this case the did con- and the Board which was before and in that case it did not “make [a] the by in has been included challenge it sidered jurisdic- direct to the Board’s proceed- transcript administrative of the place duty tion so as to on the Board the ing to the Court.” certified putting by of compliance in evidence of page the F.2d I Union.” 278 187. has at Board that since the It would seem per concur in the sufficiency to the evi- curiam order of the the not reviewed filings sufficiency extent that the of the compliance to ac- than of further dence pursuant attorney, 9(f) (g), to regional Sections and 29 report cept its the of g) (f, 159 U.S.C.A. should be appropriate for this disclosed § it be not now would in the record certified to attempt suffi- this to the Court. Court to review ciency. Since, however, said as we have may original opinion, be a in our review filings sufficiency of the as to the
had sections, appropriate con- we under the exam- Board should have clude that the filings passed and should have ined such upon sufficiency question of their the “report rely solely on the than rather investigation.” of the administrative MUTUAL AMERICAN LIABILITY IN clearly apparent more This becomes CO., Corporation, SURANCE a of in number in of the fact that a view Appellant, investigating deter- officer the instances v. a technical that there was not mined compliance GOFF, Jr., Goff, Ann Kathleen Charles T. requirements of the the with Goff, minors, by Jo and Bette and only compliance. Act, “substantial” but through Litem, their Ad Guardian of his that such decision Goff, Goff, The correctness and Charles T. Charles T. may Appellees. compliance substi- be substantial compliance must neces- for exact tuted No. 16375. by sarily consideration be determined a Appeals States Court of United his he on which based of the evidence Ninth Circuit. should, determination Such conclusion. Aug. 25, 1960. by course, made first the Board. be of necessary, therefore, It, in or- becomes may previous be car- order our
der that out, case remanded to the be that
ried require the ad- it to review to
the Board finding to ascertain whether ministrative filings by supported adequately the it is complaining by union. the made incorporate in directed to Board is The during material assembled the
the record investigation and to consider whether the