Court Opinion

ID: 9450329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:42:12.662199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:15.011410
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
I dissent from the denial of the enforcement of the Board’s order to reinstate the employee Frankwiek.
It is the exclusive function of the Board to decide the credibility of the witnesses and resolve conflicts in their testimony. Our function is limited to an inquiry whether the evidence credited by the Board supports the Board’s findings. N.L.R.B. v. Aurora City Lines, Inc., 299 F.2d 229 (7th Cir. 1962). The glaring inconsistency between Hribar’s testimony before the hearing examiner and his sworn statement to a Board agent justified the Board’s discrediting his testimony and believing that of Frankwiek. Although the evidence indicates that Frankwiek may have been an unsatisfactory employee, it also shows that he was discharged only after the union’s business agent had an argument with him about union dues. There was substantial evidence in my opinion to support the Board’s finding that the precipitating reason for Frankwick’s discharge was his persistent failure to join the union.
In Revere Camera Company v. N.L.R.B., 304 F.2d 162, 164 (7th Cir. 1962) this court said:
“Our review in so far as factual findings of the Board are concerned is limited to a determination of whether or not those findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. * * * And, conclusions which are reasonable inferences of fact may not be set aside upon judicial review because the courts would have drawn different inferences.”
I think we should adhere to this prior pronouncement concerning our limited functions.
I would enforce the order in its entirety.