La Gloria Oil & Gas v. NLRB ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit June 6, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60705
LA GLORIA OIL AND GAS COMPANY
Petitioner - Cross-Respondent,
VERSUS
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent - Cross-Petitioner.
Petition for Review for Enforcement of the
Order of the National Labor Relations Board
Before DUHE’, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
On June 15, 2000, and August 14, 2000, Paper, Allied-
Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union and its
Local 4-202 (“Union”) filed unfair labor practice charges against
La Gloria Oil and Gas Company (“La Gloria”), alleging that La
Gloria violated sections 8(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act (“NLRA”)on March 12, 2000, by discharging tanker-
truck drivers Floyd Saylor and Bill Lampe. A trial was conducted
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
on June 13-15, 2001, by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). On
September 19, 2001, the ALJ issued a decision in which she
concluded that La Gloria engaged in interrogation and threats and
that Saylor and Lampe were discharged in violation of the NLRA and
should be reinstated. The ALJ also ordered that ballots cast by
Saylor and Lampe in a vote on whether or not the drivers should
join the Union, which were previously excluded due to their
dismissals, should be opened and counted. These votes would change
the result of the vote in favor of joining the Union.
La Gloria appealed the ALJ’s decision to the National Labor
Relations Board. A majority of a three-member panel of the Board
affirmed the ALJ’s decision. La Gloria timely filed a Petition for
Review of the Board’s decision to this Court on August 28, 2002.
On appeal, La Gloria argues that the Board erred in finding
that the General Counsel had established a prima facie case against
La Gloria so as to shift the burden of proof onto them. La Gloria
also argues that the Board erred in finding that La Gloria’s
proffered reasons for firing Saylor and Lampe were pretextual and
that such a finding is not substantiated by the record.
The NLRB’s findings of fact, if not influenced by an erroneous
view of the law, are conclusive if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered in its entirety. Texas
Petrochemicals v. NLRB, 923 F.2d 398, 402 (5th Cir. 1991). A
reviewing court should not re-evaluate the credibility of
2
witnesses, re-weigh the evidence, or reject reasonable Board
inferences simply because other inferences might also have
reasonably been drawn. NLRB v. Adco Electric, Inc., 6 F.3d 1110,
1115 (5th Cir. 1993). Substantial evidence is such relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind would accept to support a
conclusion. Valmont Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 244 F.3d 454, 463 (5th
Cir. 2001) (“A reviewing court will uphold the Board’s decision if
it is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence on the
record considered as a whole.”). “The Board’s conclusions of law
are also entitled to deference if they have a reasonable basis in
the law and are not inconsistent with the Act.” Id. at 464; NLRB
v. Motorola, Inc., 991 F.2d 278, 282 (5th Cir. 1993)(“The standard
of review for a question of law decided by the Board is de novo,
but if the Board’s construction of the statute is ‘reasonably
defensible,’ its orders are to be enforced.”).
Having carefully reviewed the record in this case, as well as
the parties’ respective briefing, and, in light of the discretion
under which this Court reviews the Board’s findings, we conclude
that the Board’s decision should be affirmed. The Board did not
err in finding that the General Counsel had established its prima
facie case, and, though we may not have come to the same conclusion
as the Board, we find that substantial evidence exists to support
the Board’s finding that La Gloria’s proffered reasons for firing
Saylor and Lampe were pretextual. We therefore AFFIRM the Board’s
3
decision.
AFFIRMED.
4