RED ARROW FREIGHT LINES, PETITIONER, CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT, CROSS-PETITIONER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that substantial evidence on the record supports the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the employer violated the NLRA.
The National Labor Relations Board found that Red Arrow Freight Lines discriminatorily refused to hire Lyal L. Foster due to his union membership. The…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
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 Red Arrow Freight Lines violated section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (3) and (1), by discriminatorily refusing to hire Lyal L. Foster because of his actual or suspected membership in the Teamsters Union. 175 NLRB No. 160. The only question on review is whether substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole supports this conclusion. See NLRB v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co., 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F. 2d 559.
On many of the factual questions, reasonable men might have reached different conclusions, and there were several credibility determinations to be made by the Trial Examiner. But there is ample evidence to support the findings.
Therefore, we enforce the order of the Board.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United States Trucking Corp., 532 F.2d 1020 (5th Cir. 1976)
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Huth v. S. Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Monroe Auto Equip. Co., 392 F.2d 559 (5th Cir. 1968)