U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1970

National Labor Relations Board v. Central Machine & Tool Company

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Decided June 3, 1970 · Lewis, Seth, Bratton

424 F.2d 542 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Eli Nash, Jr., Washington, D. C., (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Frank H. Itkin, Attorney, N.L.R.B., on the brief), for petitioner., Frank Carter, of Otjen & Carter and Stephen Jones, Enid, Okl., for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

John W. Huber v. National Labor Relations Board, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 515, Intervenor (10th Cir. 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding for review presents only counter-contentions as to whether the record as a whole sustains the decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board. Our review of the record reflects more than ample evidentiary support for the Board’s findings, conclusions and order which, with a single exception, were an adoption of the recommendations of the Trial Examiner. The exception lies with a finding by the Trial Examiner that an employee, Lucas, was not discharged for discriminatory reasons and a finding by the Board that Lucas’ termination was unlawfully motivated. The evidence pertaining to the discharge of Lucas is largely circumstantial in nature and capable of supporting different inferences. In such case it is well within the province of the Board *543 to draw a different inference from the evidence than that of the examiner although the ultimate finding of the examiner may not be clearly erroneous. Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co. v. NLRB, 10 Cir., 326 F.2d 949. So, too, a violation need not be solely motivated by union discrimination. Bets Baking Co. v. NLRB, 10 Cir., 380 F.2d 199.

The order will be enforced.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.