Hicks-Ponder Company, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross

Fifth Circuit

Hicks-Ponder Company, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross

424 F.2d 538

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1970

Docket27177_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 424 F.2d 538 (Hicks-Ponder Company, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hicks-Ponder Company, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross, 424 F.2d 538 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

We have concluded on the merits that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this fact in writing. See Huth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804; 5th Cir. R. 18.

The National Labor Relations Board found that the Hicks-Ponder Company violated section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their section 7 organizational rights. It also found an 8(a) (3) and (1) violation in the discriminatory discharge of employee Josephine Jaime. The question before us, again, is whether substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole supports the findings. See NLRB v. Monroe Auto [539]*539Equipment Co., 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F.2d 599.

There is ample evidence to support the Board on the first violation. The second is complicated in that several of the relevant witnesses gave evasive testimony. Apparently none presented a completely accurate and detached statement of what occurred. But on the basis of the record we are unable to say that the Trial Examiner — and the Board in affirming him —made erroneous credibility determinations. *

Consequently, we enforce the order of the Board.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

We have concluded on the merits that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this fact in writing. See Huth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804; 5th Cir. R. 18.

The National Labor Relations Board found that the Hicks-Ponder Company violated section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their section 7 organizational rights. It also found an 8(a) (3) and (1) violation in the discriminatory discharge of employee Josephine Jaime. The question before us, again, is whether substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole supports the findings. See NLRB v. Monroe Auto [539]*539Equipment Co., 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F.2d 599.

There is ample evidence to support the Board on the first violation. The second is complicated in that several of the relevant witnesses gave evasive testimony. Apparently none presented a completely accurate and detached statement of what occurred. But on the basis of the record we are unable to say that the Trial Examiner — and the Board in affirming him —made erroneous credibility determinations. *

Consequently, we enforce the order of the Board.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 F.2d 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-ponder-company-petitioner-cross-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca5-1970.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack