Court Opinion

ID: 9703849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:10:33.930183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:52.291343
License: Public Domain

Burling, J.
(concurring). 1 agree with the views expressed by the majority, but would additionally rely upon the constitutional grounds originally enunciated by this court upon the appeal from the denial of pendente lite injunctive relief, 23 N. J. 85 (1956). The specter of a company-dominated union raised by Local 680 has disintegrated by the defaulting silence of Local 680 when called upon by the trial court to come forward with proofs upon the tendered issue. The .plenary hearing has confirmed that the main objective of the picketing was to bring economic pressure to ■bear upon Decker with the intent of compelling the members of the Independent Union to join Local 680 against their free will, i. e., to relieve the economic pressure against their ■employer and thereby conserve their employment. The dominant issue' raised on this appeal is identical to that 'disposed of on the previous appeal.
I vote to affirm the judgment from which the appeal is -taken. . ■
Burling,'-J.,.'concurring in result.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Burling, Jacobs, Erancis, Proctor and Hall — 6.
For reversal — None.