* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

2 Trencor, Inc. v. NLRB , 110 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 1997).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-60441

Summary Calendar

TRENCOR, INC.,

Petitioner-Cross-Respondent,

VERSUS

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent-Cross-Petitioner.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(16-CA-17725)

April 28, 1999

Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

On August 3, 1995, the employees of Trencor, Inc., voted to certify the United Steelworkers

of America as their union and bargaining agent. This election was upheld by the Nat io nal Labor

Relations Board. Trencor appealed to this Court. This Court remanded the matter for an evidentiary

hearing on Trencor’s allegation that the union had promised to throw “the biggest party in the history

of Texas” if the employees voted to unionize. 2 After the evidentiary hearing was held, the

Administrative Law Judge overruled Trencor’s objections to the election and the events surrounding

it. The Board then affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, and ordered Trencor to

accept the union as the collective bargaining agent of the employees. Trencor now appeals.

Trencor asserts that the union made a pre-election promise t o the employees that, i f the3 NLRB v. Laredo Packing Co. , 730 F.2d 405, 408 (5th Cir. 1984).

4 Id.

5 See R ockwell International Corp. v. NLRB

, 814 F.2d 1530, 1532 n.2 (11th Cir. 1987); “the

ALJ, however, is free to believe some testimony, without believing the witness’ whole story.”

-2- employees voted to unionize, the union would throw the biggest party in the history of Texas.

Trencor contends that this promise of a par t y co nstitutes an illegal inducement to vote in favor of

unionization. The ALJ determined that no such pre-election promise had been made.

If there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole that supports the Board’s findings, this

Court is bound to accept them. 3 In this case there is subst ant ial evidence to support the Board’s

findings. The ALJ credited the testimony of Bill Fears, who is alleged to have made the pre-election

promise, that he never made such a statement. Rather, the ALJ determined that Fears invited other

employees to join him to drink beer after the election, either to celebrate together or to cry together.

The ALJ also credited the testimony of Larry Whitaker, a former Trencor employee who gave

hearsay testimony that there would be a party to celebrate the union’s victory. The ALJ, however,

did not credit Whitaker’s testimony that this discussion of a party was held before the election. The

ALJ’s final conclusion was that such a conversation occurred, but only after the union had won its

victory.

Trencor contends that this testimony cannot be considered substantial evidence to support the

Board’s decision, in that this credibility determination is “inherently unreasonable and selfcontradi ctory .” 4 We disagree. There is nothing inherently contradictory in a finder-of-fact

determining that a witness accurately recalls an event, but is mistaken as to exactly when that event

took place. 5 As the ALJ’s credibility determination is neither unreasonable nor self-contradictory,

this determination is conclusive. Based on the testimony credited by the ALJ, there is substantial

evidence to support the Board’s decision.

AFFIRMED.-3-