316 U.S. 105 (1942), 774, National Labor Relations Board

Docket NºNo. 774
Citation316 U.S. 105, 62 S.Ct. 960, 86 L.Ed. 1305
Party NameNational Labor Relations Board
Case DateApril 27, 1942
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 105

316 U.S. 105 (1942)

62 S.Ct. 960, 86 L.Ed. 1305

National Labor Relations Board

No. 774

United States Supreme Court

April 27, 1942

v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corp.

Argued April 8, 1942

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Findings of fact by the National Labor Relations Board supported by evidence are conclusive. P. 106.

122 F.2d 587 reversed.

Page 106

Per curiam opinion.

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 et seq. The Board made its order directing employment of these individuals with backpay. 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 587.

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

Page 107

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 Mach. Co., 315 U.S. 282; cf. Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States, 300 U.S. 297, 307; Federal Trade Comm'n v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Cosco Products Co., (1959)
    • United States
    • April 16, 1959
    ...516 (C.A. 9) ;PlasticMolding Company, Inc.,110 NLRB 2137, 2138. The Supreme Court held inN.L.R.B. v. NevadaConsolidatedCopper Corporation,316 U.S. 105, 106, that the power to draw either of two incon-sistent inferences is a proper function of the trier of the facts.44N.L.R.B. v. Whitin Mach......
  • Northwest Engineering Co., (1964)
    • United States
    • September 21, 1964
    ...v. Exchange Parts Company, supraa3N.L R.B v Cleveland TrustCo, 214 F. 2d95,99 (C.A. 6).'34N L.R B v Nevada Consolidated Copper Corporation,316 U.S. 105, 107.Untive# sal Camera Corporation v. N L R.B.,340 U.S. 474.3°JN L.R B:v: Murray Ohio ManufacturingCo., 326 F. 2d 509 (C.A.(1).'37CfAmeric......
  • Daniel Hamm Drayage Co., Inc., (1949)
    • United States
    • June 22, 1949
    ...work onNovember8,1947, andagain on December9, 1947.'SeeMatter of Nevada Consolidated Copper Corporation,26 N. L.R. B. 1182, enfd.316 U. S. 105;Matter of Ellss Canning Company,76 N. L. R. B. 99;Matter of Pinaud,Incorporated,51 N. L.R. B. 235;Matter of Olympia ShingleCo., 26 N. L. R. B. 1398,......
  • Punch and Judy Togs, Inc. of California, (1949)
    • United States
    • August 1, 1949
    ...on behalf of, the Union.My reasonsfor drawing that conclusion are as follows :ON. L. R. B. v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corporation,316 U. S. 105 ;N. L. R. B. v.Walt Disney Productions,146 F. (2d) 44 (C. A. 506DECISIONSOF NATIONALLABOR RELATIONS BOARD1.While I have already alluded to the b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Cosco Products Co., (1959)
    • United States
    • April 16, 1959
    ...516 (C.A. 9) ;PlasticMolding Company, Inc.,110 NLRB 2137, 2138. The Supreme Court held inN.L.R.B. v. NevadaConsolidatedCopper Corporation,316 U.S. 105, 106, that the power to draw either of two incon-sistent inferences is a proper function of the trier of the facts.44N.L.R.B. v. Whitin Mach......
  • Northwest Engineering Co., (1964)
    • United States
    • September 21, 1964
    ...v. Exchange Parts Company, supraa3N.L R.B v Cleveland TrustCo, 214 F. 2d95,99 (C.A. 6).'34N L.R B v Nevada Consolidated Copper Corporation,316 U.S. 105, 107.Untive# sal Camera Corporation v. N L R.B.,340 U.S. 474.3°JN L.R B:v: Murray Ohio ManufacturingCo., 326 F. 2d 509 (C.A.(1).'37CfAmeric......
  • Daniel Hamm Drayage Co., Inc., (1949)
    • United States
    • June 22, 1949
    ...work onNovember8,1947, andagain on December9, 1947.'SeeMatter of Nevada Consolidated Copper Corporation,26 N. L.R. B. 1182, enfd.316 U. S. 105;Matter of Ellss Canning Company,76 N. L. R. B. 99;Matter of Pinaud,Incorporated,51 N. L.R. B. 235;Matter of Olympia ShingleCo., 26 N. L. R. B. 1398,......
  • Punch and Judy Togs, Inc. of California, (1949)
    • United States
    • August 1, 1949
    ...on behalf of, the Union.My reasonsfor drawing that conclusion are as follows :ON. L. R. B. v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corporation,316 U. S. 105 ;N. L. R. B. v.Walt Disney Productions,146 F. (2d) 44 (C. A. 506DECISIONSOF NATIONALLABOR RELATIONS BOARD1.While I have already alluded to the b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT