Notice: D.c. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) States That Unpublished Orders, Judgments, and Explanatory Memoranda May Not Be Cited As Precedents, but Counsel May Refer to Unpublished Dispositions when the Binding or Preclusive Effect of the Disposition, Rather Than Its Quality As Precedent, is Relevant, 70 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 1995)

These consolidated petitions for review of a decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), together with the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement, were considered on the briefs filed by the parties and the oral argument presented September 12, 1995. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petitions for review of the NLRB decisions issued July 29, 1994, be denied in full. It is further ordered that the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement of its order be granted in full. This court must uphold the Board's judgment unless the record as a whole does not contain substantial evidence to support the Board's findings or the Board acted arbitrarily or erred in its application of the law. International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Mach. & Furniture Workers, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 41 F.3d 1532, 1536 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Both the petitioners and the intervenor have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the Board's decision. They have also failed to demonstrate that the Board acted arbitrarily or erred in applying the law. This court must therefore uphold the Board's decision and order. Intervenor District 6's request that this court order an investigation of the NLRB is dismissed on the grounds that this court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 41.