NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT COMPANY, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence.
The Board found that the respondent committed unfair labor practices by discriminatorily transferring an employee to less desirable employment and con…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constructive Discharge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The Board has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.), for enforcement of its order wherein it found that respondent committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act at its Hartwell, Georgia, factory in that it discriminatorily transferred to less desirable employment, and thereafter constructively discharged, employee Hoke H. Smith and discriminatorily suspended employee Charles Cleveland.
The Board adopted the trial examiner’s findings. The examiner credited the testimony of Hoke Smith as opposed to contradictory testimony as to whether his employment was more arduous than previous employment and as to whether more difficult employment resulted from Smith’s union activities or his suspected union activities. The examiner found also, after conflicting testimony, that Cleveland’s suspension was pretextual and in reprisal for his adherence to the union. Both Smith and Cleveland had acted as observers for the union at the election held by the Board in the plant.
There is considerable testimony in this case, pro and con, on the issue of the alleged unfair labor practices. Though the Board’s evidence is not as strong as in some cases where we have enforced its orders, we are unable to say that the examiner’s findings, adopted by the Board, are not supported by substantial evidence. Cf. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v.
N. L.
R. B., 5 Cir., 1968, 391 F. 2d 203. Numerous credibility choices were made by the examiner and we are usually bound by such determinations, Nabors v.
N. L.
R. B., 5 Cir., 1963, 323 F. 2d 686; N.
L. R. B. v. Waycross Sportswear, Inc., 5 Cir., 1968, 391 F. 2d 294, though in a proper case the Court may decline to follow the action of an examiner in crediting and discrediting testimony even though the Board has adopted the examiner’s findings.
N. L.
R. B. v. Elias Brothers Big Boy, Inc., 6 Cir., 1964, 327 F. 2d 421, 426. We are not barred from setting aside the Board’s decision if we cannot conscientiously find that the evidence supporting it is substantial, but we are not at liberty to displace the Board’s choice if it is between two fairly conflicting views, even though we would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before us de novo.
N. L.
R. B. v. Certain-Teed Products Corp., 5 Cir., 1968, 387 F. 2d 639; N.
L. R. B. v. Camco, Inc., 5 Cir., 1966, 369 F. 2d 125, 127. Considering the record as a whole, we conclude there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings of discrimination against Smith and Cleveland in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. See Avondale Shipyards, Inc., v.
N. L.
R. B., supra.
Enforced.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 441 F.2d 514 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
Delco-Remy Division v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 596 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1979)
-
Gulf States Mfrs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 579 F.2d 1298 (5th Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nabors v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 323 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1963)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Elias Bros. BIG BOY, Inc., 327 F.2d 421 (6th Cir. 1964)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Camco, 369 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Exum v. Dampskibbelskabet Torm, 387 F.2d 639 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Certain-Teed Prods. Corp., 387 F.2d 639 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Waycross Sportswear, Inc., 391 F.2d 294 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 391 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1968)