Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404 (1962)

National Labor Relations Board v. Walton Manufacturing Co.

No. 77

Argued March 19, 1962

Decided April 9, 1962*

369 U.S. 404

Syllabus

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied enforcement of orders of the National Labor Relations Board requiring reinstatement with back pay of employees found to have been discriminatorily discharged in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. In doing so, the Court of Appeals applied a special rule which it had adopted for use in reinstatement cases, to the effect that the employer's statement under oath as to the reason for the discharge must be believed unless he is impeached or contradicted.

Held: the judgments are reversed and the cases are remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration. Pp. 369 U. S. 405-409.

(a) A reviewing court is not barred from setting aside a decision of the National Labor Relations Board when it cannot conscientiously find that the evidence supporting that decision is substantial when viewed in the light of "the record considered as a whole"; but it may not displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the Court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board,340 U. S. 474. P. 369 U. S. 405.

(b) There is no place in the statutory scheme for one test of the substantiality of evidence in reinstatement cases, and another test in other cases. Pp. 369 U. S. 407-408.

(c) Since this Court is in doubt as to how the Court of Appeals would have decided these two cases in the absence of its own special rule applicable to such cases, the cases are remanded to that Court for reconsideration. Pp. 369 U. S. 408-409.

286 F.2d 16; 288 F.2d 630, reversed and cases remanded.

Page 369 U. S. 405

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.