National Labor Relations Board v. Kem Distributing Company

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Kem Distributing Company

389 F.2d 386, 66 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2320, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4940

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 6, 1967

Docket24465_1

StatusPublished

This text of 389 F.2d 386 (National Labor Relations Board v. Kem Distributing Company) 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

National Labor Relations Board v. Kem Distributing Company, 389 F.2d 386, 66 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2320, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4940 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The issue presented on this petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of a cease and desist order and an order requiring the rehiring of an employee allegedly discharged on account of his union activities presents only the question whether there was substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the findings by the Board that Thomann had been discharged on account of such activities rather than the alleged ground given by the employer upon terminating his employment. Like many other cases involving motivation, the finder of fact must draw inferences from the evidence before it. Here we conclude that there is ample evidence to support the findings by the trial examiner, and affirmed by the Board, that the no drinking rule by this beer salesman was not intended to be applied literally and in fact had not been applied literally even as against this employee. The record also contains sufficient evidence to warrant the inference drawn by the examiner and the Board that it is only when Thomann’s active union conduct came to the attention of his employer that the matter of his having drunk “two beers” with a customer, when coupled with earlier occasions of drinking which had not been considered by the company as adequate for discharge, became the convenient handle to eliminate a troublesome employee.

The order of the Board will be enforced.

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

PER CURIAM:

The issue presented on this petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of a cease and desist order and an order requiring the rehiring of an employee allegedly discharged on account of his union activities presents only the question whether there was substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the findings by the Board that Thomann had been discharged on account of such activities rather than the alleged ground given by the employer upon terminating his employment. Like many other cases involving motivation, the finder of fact must draw inferences from the evidence before it. Here we conclude that there is ample evidence to support the findings by the trial examiner, and affirmed by the Board, that the no drinking rule by this beer salesman was not intended to be applied literally and in fact had not been applied literally even as against this employee. The record also contains sufficient evidence to warrant the inference drawn by the examiner and the Board that it is only when Thomann’s active union conduct came to the attention of his employer that the matter of his having drunk “two beers” with a customer, when coupled with earlier occasions of drinking which had not been considered by the company as adequate for discharge, became the convenient handle to eliminate a troublesome employee.

The order of the Board will be enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 F.2d 386, 66 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2320, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-kem-distributing-company-ca5-1967.