(citations omitted); see also Teleprompter Corp. v. NLRB, 570 F.2d 4, 9 n. 2 (1st Cir.1977). The Board affirmed this interpretation in 1991. See Ameron Pipe Prods., 305 N.L.R.B. 105, 109 n. 7 (1991) (“Although the [Supreme] Court limited its holding, the case has become widely accepted as establishing for all practical purposes such an 'automatic' rule.”). Harvstone, Teleprompter, and Ameron Pipe Products have never been overruled or criticized for using a simple, mechanical application of Truitt when a company asserts an inability to pay. Nevertheless, this court must adhere to the Supreme Court’s mandate and thus, should accord the relevant language appropriate deference. See Mesa Verde Constr. Co. v. N. Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers, 861 F.2d 1124, 1129-31 (9th Cir.1988) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, those cases are out-of-circuit
holding that circuit court should defer to supreme courts interpretation of the act holding that a court must defer to an agencys reasonable interpretation of a statute even if the court might have preferred another holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law holding that courts should defer to agencys interpretation of its own regulations if not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation holding that the ninth circuit erred by failing to defer to the bias reasonable interpretation of the ina