NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
v.
NEVADA CONSOLIDATED COPPER CORP.
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 if the National Labor Relations Board's findings of fact are supported by evidence, courts cannot reweigh the evidence or set aside the findings, even if different inferences could be drawn.
The National Labor Relations Board found that an employer discriminated against employees and applicants to discourage union membership. The employer …
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.
Per Curiam.
In this case the National Labor Relations Board found that respondent, in refusing to reemploy a number of its former employees and to employ two new applicants, had discriminated against them in order to discourage membership in a labor union in violation of § 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U. S. C. § 151. The Board made its order directing employment of these individuals with back pay. The Circuit Court of Appeals refused to enforce the Board’s order on the ground that its findings were without substantial support in the evidence. 122 F. 2d 687.
Examination of the record discloses that there was substantial evidence from which the Board could have concluded that respondent’s refusal to employ the men was motivated by its belief that they had engaged or threatened to engage in destruction of respondent’s property and had threatened to injure some of respondent’s managerial employees and members of their families. There was also substantial evidence from which the Board could have concluded, as it did, that respondent’s motive for refusing the employment was discouragement of membership in a labor union. The possibility of drawing either of two inconsistent inferences from the evidence did not prevent the Board from drawing one of them, as the court below seems to have thought.
We have repeatedly held that Congress, by providing, § 10 (c), (e) and (f), of the National Labor Relations Act, that the Board’s findings “as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive,” precludes the courts from weighing evidence in reviewing the Board’s orders, and if the findings of the Board are supported by evidence the courts are not free to set them aside, even though the Board could have drawn different inferences. Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U. S. 584, and cases cited; Labor Board v. Automotive Maintenance Co., 315 U. S. 282; cf. Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States, 300 U. S. 297, 307; Federal Trade Comm’n v. Pacific Paper Assn., 273 U. S. 52, 63; Federal Trade Comm’n v. Algoma Co., 291 U. S. 67, 73. Since upon an examination of the record we cannot say that the findings of fact of the Board are without support in the evidence, the judgment below must be reversed with directions to enforce the Board’s order, but with the modification proposed by the Board to conform to our decision in Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board, 311 U. S. 7.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (133 total)
-
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951)…idence which, when viewed in isolation, substantiated the Board’s findings. Compare Labor Board v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 309 U. S. 206; Labor Board v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., 310 U. S. 318; and see Labor Board v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corp., 316 U. S. 105. This is not to say that every member of this Court was consciously guided by this view or that the Court ever explicitly avowed this practice as doctrine. What matters is that the belief justifiably arose that the Court had so construed the obligat…1 / 3
-
Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1977)…ing its orders, have recognized that the failure to submit a futile application does not bar an award of relief to a person claiming that he was denied employment because of union affiliation or activity. In NLRB v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corp., 316 U. S. 105, this Court enforced an order of the Board directing an employer to hire, with retroactive benefits, former employees who had not applied for newly available jobs because of the employer’s well-known policy of refusing to hire union members. See In…
-
Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., Inc., 424 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1976)…er grounds, 313 U. S. 177 (1941) (ordering persons discriminatorily refused employment hired “without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges”); In re Nevada Consolidated Copper Corp., 26 N. L. R. B. 1182, 1235 (1940), enforced, 316 U. S. 105 (1942) (ordering persons discriminatorily refused employment hired with “any seniority or other rights and privileges they would have acquired, had the respondent not unlawfully discriminated against them”). Plainly the “affirmative action” injuncti…
Previewing 3 of 133 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1941)
- Republic Steel Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 311 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1940)
- Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1934)
- Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Pac. States Paper Trade Ass'n, 273 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1927)
- Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States, 300 U.S. 297 (U.S. 1937)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 315 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1942)