eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2002-07

Moses Elec Svc Inc v. NLRB ( 2002 )


Menu:
 
  •                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 02-60016
Summary Calendar
MOSES ELECTRIC SERVICE, INC., and its agent
EXPRESS PERSONNEL SERVICES,
Petitioner-Cross-Respondent,
VERSUS
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Respondent-Cross-Petitioner.
Petition for Review & Cross-Petition for Enforcement
of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board
(26-CA-17904)
July 15, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This case is before the Court on the petition of Moses
Electric Service, Inc. (“the Company”) to review, and the cross-
application of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) to
enforce the decision and order of the Board issued on July 16,
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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.
2001, in which the Board determined that the Company violated
§ 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. (“the Act”), by refusing to hire twelve
applicants because of their Union affiliation and by discharging
employee, Stephen Alexander, because of his Union activities. This
Court will not disturb the Board’s unfair labor practice findings
if   substantial     evidence     supports          the   Board’s   inferences   and
conclusions, “even if the Court would justifiably have made a
different choice had the matter been before it de novo.” Universal
Camera Corp. v. NLRB,
    340 U.S. 474
    , 488 (1951), accord, NLRB v.
Thermon Heat Tracing Services, Inc.,
    143 F.3d 181
    , 185 (5th Cir.
1998). Because the Board’s findings with respect to the employer’s
motive in discrimination cases involves “drawing inferences from
the evidence” based on “the expertise of the Board,” this Court’s
review   of   such    findings        “is    even    more    deferential.”       Laro
Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB,
    56 F.3d 224
    , 229 (D.C. Cir. 1995),
accord, Valmont Indus., Inc. v. NLRB,
    244 F.3d 454
    , 463 (5th Cir.
2001).   Finally, this Court has consistently held that it will not
displace the administrative law judge’s credibility determinations
or   inferences,     as     adopted    by    the    Board,   except   in   the   rare
circumstances        when     those         credibility      determinations      are
unreasonable or are based on an inadequate or nonexistent reason.
NLRB v. McCullough Environmental Services, Inc.,
    5 F.3d 923 
    (5th
Cir. 1993).
2
Under these standards of review, we have carefully reviewed
the petition for review, the Board’s order, the briefs, the reply
brief, and relevant portions of the record itself.           We conclude
that the Board’s findings of discrimination are supported by
substantial   evidence   and   that   the   administrative   law   judge’s
credibility determinations are not unreasonable.        Accordingly, we
dismiss the Company’s petition for review, and grant the cross-
application by the Board for enforcement of its order of July 16,
2001.   The Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
are hereby ordered to comply therewith.
3