From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

National Treasury v. Federal Labor Relations

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 19, 2007
511 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-76783.

Argued and Submitted December 5, 2007.

Filed December 19, 2007.

Robert H. Shriver, III; Gregory O'Duden, General Counsel; Elaine Kaplan, Senior Deputy General Counsel; Larry J. Adkins, Deputy General Counsel; Julie M. Wilson, Assistant Counsel, National Treasury Employees Union, Washington, DC, for the petitioner.

James F. Blandford; William R. Tobey, Acting Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Washington, DC, for the respondent.

Howard S. Scher; Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; William Kanter, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, Washington, DC; James N. DeStefano, Associate Chief Counsel; David Goldfarb, Assistant Chief Counsel; Caroline M. Blessey, Assistant Chief Counsel, United States Customs and Border Protection, United States Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, for the intervenor.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. FLRA Nos. SF-CA-02-0003, SF-CA-02-0060, SF-CA-03-0183.

Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, ROBERT E. COWEN and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.


We deny the petition for review for the reasons given by the D.C. Circuit in National Treasury Employees Union v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 453 F.3d 506, 511-12 (D.C. Cir. 2006), whose rationale we adopt as our own.

PETITION DENIED.


Summaries of

National Treasury v. Federal Labor Relations

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 19, 2007
511 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

National Treasury v. Federal Labor Relations

Case Details

Full title:NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION (NTEU), Petitioner, v. FEDERAL LABOR…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 19, 2007

Citations

511 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2007)