# National Labor Relations Board v. Smoky Mountain Stages, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 10, 1971 · 447 F.2d 925

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457280

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SMOKY MOUNTAIN STAGES, INC., Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 10, 1971
- **Citations:** 447 F.2d 925; 78 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2217; 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8131
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Craven
- **Judges:** Craven, Haynsworth, Boreman
- **Cited by:** 2 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/9457280

## Opinion text

CRAVEN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
It is true that Wells’ testimony as to the antiunion statements made by Company representatives was sharply contradicted. The hearing examiner resolved the credibility questions in Wells’ favor, 1 which resolution was affirmed by the Board. The unstated premise of the majority opinion is that we may resolve the credibility question differently. We have no authority to do so, NLRB v. Walton Manufacturing Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408 , 82 S.Ct. 853 , 7 L.Ed.2d 829 (1962); *930 NLRB v. Lexington Chair Co., 361 F.2d 283, 288 (4th Cir. 1966); NLRB v. M & B Headwear Co., 349 F.2d 170, 173 (4th Cir. 1965); NLRB v. Lester Brothers, Inc., 301 F.2d 62, 68 (4th Cir. 1962), nor may we do so under the guise of a conclusion that the Board’s finding of antiunion motive lacks substantial evi-dentiary basis. I think there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding that Wells’ union activity was “a factor” in the Company’s decision to discharge him, Winchester Spinning Corp. v. NLRB, 402 F.2d 299, 304 (4th Cir. 1968); accord NLRB v. Hanes Hosiery Division, Hanes Corp., 413 F.2d 457, 458 (4th Cir. 1969); and I respectfully dissent.
. The hearing examiner’s conclusions with respect to the statements attributed to dispatcher Jones (those most damaging to the Company’s position) were especially pointed:
I have little hesitancy in crediting Wells over Jones, for although Wells’ memory in some respects was faulty (see infra), I formed the distinct impression that he was trying to tell the truth as he remembered it. Jones’ demeanor, however, was that of an employee determined to testify the way best calculated to injure Wells and help the cause of Jones’ employer, without regard for the truth.i I credit Wells over Jones, particularly with respect to what Jones said when he heard Wells was discharged, and also with respect, to Jones’ threats and comments to Wells as to what would happen if Wells “joined up with that union bunch.”
!• This is a harsh judgment, and the Trial Examiner is well aware that lie, like Jones and everyone else, is a fallible human being. I may be in error, but my considered judgment based on my observation of the two men as well as the content of the testimony is that Wells tried to tell the truth and Jones did not.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457280. Public record. Not legal advice.