Filing 920071219


Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION (NTEU), Petitioner, v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, Respondent, and UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Intervenor. No. 05-76783 FLRA Nos. SF-CA-02-0003 SF-CA-02-0060 SF-CA-03-0183 OPINION On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority Argued and Submitted December 5, 2007--San Francisco, California Filed December 19, 2007 Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Robert E. Cowen* and Michael Daly Hawkins, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Opinion *The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. 16551 16552 NTEU v. FLRA COUNSEL 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. OPINION PER CURIAM: We deny the petition for review for the reasons given by the D.C. Circuit in National Treasury Employees Union v. NTEU v. FLRA 16553 Federal Labor Relations Authority, 453 F.3d 506, 511-12 (D.C. Cir. 2006), whose rationale we adopt as our own. PETITION DENIED.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?