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

Red Arrow Freight Lines v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided February 19, 1970 · Wisdom, Coleman, Simpson

423 F.2d 35; 73 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2622; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10630 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Allen P. Schoolfield, Jr., and Michael Jay Kuper, Schoolfield & Smith, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner, cross-respondent., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Robert A. Giannasi, Douglas L. Leslie, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., Elmer Davis, Regional Director, N.L.R.B., Fort Worth, Tex., for respondent, cross-petitioner., Southern Conference of Teamsters, by L. N. D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, Tex., amicus curiae.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

National Labor Relations Board v. United States Trucking Corporation (5th Cir. 1976)

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.

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. *36 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.

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