# Hicks-Ponder Company, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · April 15, 1970 · 424 F.2d 538

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455488

## Case

- **Full name:** HICKS-PONDER COMPANY, Petitioner-Cross Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent-Cross Petitioner
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 15, 1970
- **Citations:** 424 F.2d 538
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Wisdom, Coleman, Simpson
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455488

## Opinion text

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 the Hicks-Ponder Company violated section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158 (a) (1), by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their section 7 organizational rights. It also found an 8(a) (3) and (1) violation in the discriminatory discharge of employee Josephine Jaime. The question before us, again, is whether substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole supports the findings. See NLRB v. Monroe Auto *539 Equipment Co., 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F.2d 599 .
There is ample evidence to support the Board on the first violation. The second is complicated in that several of the relevant witnesses gave evasive testimony. Apparently none presented a completely accurate and detached statement of what occurred. But on the basis of the record we are unable to say that the Trial Examiner — and the Board in affirming him —made erroneous credibility determinations. *
Consequently, we enforce the order of the Board.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455488. Public record. Not legal advice.