TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

International Woodworkers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent

Int'l Woodworkers of Am., Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 262 F.2d 233 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 24, 1958
Docket
No. 14302
Judges
Miller, Bastían, Burger
Citations
262 F.2d 233104 U.S. App. D.C. 34443 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 23101958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5122

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The petitioning union asks us to review and set aside a final order of the National Labor Relations Board dismissing an unfair labor practice complaint against Campbell & McLean, Inc. based on the alleged discriminatory discharge of two employees for their union membership and activities, in violation of § 8 (a)(1) and § 8(a)(3) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.

1

The Trial Examiner found that both employees had been discharged discrim-inktorily but the Board reversed, holding that “even accepting the Trial Examiner’s credibility findings,” it was unable to reach the same conclusion as did the examiner. The Board further held that its General Counsel “failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence” that the discharge of the two employees had been discriminatory.

We have carefully examined the record in the case. Were we sitting as members of the Board we might well have reached a different conclusion from that of the Board but, within the limited scope of our appellate review, we are unable to say that the finding of the Board that its General Counsel had failed to sustain the burden of proving that the two employees were discriminatorily discharged was not supported by the record. The mere fact that the Board disagreed with the examiner does not require reversal; and, as the difference in conclusion between the Board and the examiner was based on the inferences drawn from the testimony, the Board had the right to make the choice giving consideration to the examiner’s report.

2

This the Board has stated it has done and we are unable to say that its conclusion was incorrect.

The petition will be dismissed.

Dismissed.

1

. 61 Stat. 136 , 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.

2

. Federal Communications Commission v. Allentown Broadcasting Corp., 1955, 349 U.S. 358 , 75 S.Ct. 855 , 99 L.Ed. 1147 . See also Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Bd., 1951, 340 U.S. 474 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1962: 11965: 11972: 219622026peak 1972 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474 (1951) 7,362
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Allentown Broad. Corp., 349 U.S. 358 (1955) 104

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list