National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Transport Co.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 193-69.,193-69. |
| Citation | 421 F.2d 154 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. THOMPSON TRANSPORT CO., Inc., Respondent. |
Frank H. Itkin, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Morton Rosenberg, Washington, D. C., with him on the brief), for petitioner.
William G. Haynes, of Eidson, Lewis, Porter, Fisher & Haynes, Topeka, Kan., for respondent.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BREITENSTEIN and SETH, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board petitions this court under section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act for enforcement of an order directed against Thompson Transport Co., Inc.
The Board found that the company violated section 8(a) (3) of the Act by threatening to discharge and by discharging an employee because of his union activities. The Board also found a violation of section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
The record shows that a Teamsters Local Union won a Board-conducted representation election, and was certified as the collective bargaining representative of a unit consisting of all of respondent's drivers, mechanics, and parts girls. The respondent and the union were unable to negotiate a contract and a strike ensued.
The discharged employee in question, Losson J. Swanner, was a picket captain during the strike and was also a union steward. He had been employed about five years. The company gave four reasons for his discharge: damaging the bumper of the truck he was driving, calling an unauthorized strike, taking excessive time for lunch and breaks, and purchasing a tire repair without prior approval.
Basing its findings on statements made by the president of the respondent company and two other management employees, the Board found that the company discharged employee Swanner because of his union activities.
In cases of this nature the scope of review by this court is, of course, very limited under the Labor Act. "The findings of the Board with respect to questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole are conclusive." Section 10(e), National Labor Relations Act. The prevailing authority also is that the credibility of the witnesses and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are primarily for the determination of the Board. NLRB v. St. Clair Lime Co., 315 F.2d 224 (10th Cir.); Cain's Coffee Co. v. NLRB, 404 F.2d 1172 (10th Cir.); Pacific Intermountain Express Co. v. NLRB, 412 F.2d 1 (10th Cir.).
There is in this record substantial evidence to support the Board's findings and under the Act the order of the Board will be enforced.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
San Clemente Ranch, Ltd. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...findings were based were fully litigated. (Rea Trucking Co. v. N.L.R.B. (9th Cir. 1971) 439 F.2d 1065, 1066; N.L.R.B. v. Thompson Transport Co. (10th Cir. 1970) 421 F.2d 154, 155.) But that is not our case. Examination of pertinent portions of the transcript reveals that the handbook issue ......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Blake Const. Co., Inc., 80-1922
...tried by the parties may be decided by the Board regardless of whether it has been specifically pleaded." NLRB v. Thompson Transport Co., 421 F.2d 154, 155 (10th Cir. 1970) (cases cited); United Packinghouse, Food & Allied Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 416 F.2d 1126, 1134 n.12 (D.C.......
-
Facet Enterprises, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...regardless of whether it has been specifically pleaded. NLRB v. Tricor Prods., 636 F.2d 266, 271 (10th Cir.1980); NLRB v. Thompson Transp., 421 F.2d 154, 155 (10th Cir.1970); J.C. Penney Co. v. NLRB, 384 F.2d 479, 482-83 (10th Cir.1967). In determining whether a respondent can be held liabl......
-
Kawano, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...apparent in the record, these matters do not warrant our denying enforcement to the Board order. (E. g., N.L.R.B. v. Thompson Transport Co. (10th Cir. 1970) 421 F.2d 154.) III. Remedial matters are peculiarly within the discretion of the Board and will not be reviewed in this Court except w......