694. With respect to the Petitions at hand, then, the injunctive relief that the NLRB seeks would have to preserve the Respondents’ status or assets such that the NLRB “could satisfy a judgment in the event [the NLRB] prevails on the merits.” Bethesda Softworks, 452 Fed.Appx. at 353-54. The NLRB has not demonstrated in either case that availing itself of this court’s interim-injunctive-relief authority will be any more effective than utilizing its own expansive remedial powers. Along with other authorities, the United States Supreme Court frequently has affirmed this expansive NLRB authority to identify and then rectify the unfair labor practices in which an employer allegedly has engaged. See Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., Inc., 424 U.S. 747, 769, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976) (<HOLDING>) (citing Carpenters v. NLRB, 365 U.S. 651, 657,
holding that congress referred claims under the labormanagement reporting and disclosures act not to the nlrb but to the federal courts even when the conduct at issue is also an arguably unfair labor practice recognizing nlrb authority  to take measures designed to recreate the conditions and relationships that would have been had there been no unfair labor practice  holding that the nlrb general counsels decision to issue an unfair labor practice complaint is unreviewable because inter alia review would invade the realm of prosecutorial discretion holding that the nlrb was a creditor within the meaning of the code because it had been granted the power to enforce the national labor relations act even though a back pay award was made to individual workers not to the government holding that federal district courts have jurisdiction over violations of collective bargaining contracts even if such violations are also unfair labor practices subject to nlrb jurisdiction