Court Opinion

ID: 9447173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:27:52.575261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:55.717021
License: Public Domain

LEWIS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I would deny enforcement for it seems fundamental to me that before an employer can violate the rights of his employees guaranteed under Sec. 7 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 157, those rights must be involved directly or by allowable inference in the alleged violation. In each of the cases relied upon by the majority such is the factual background.1 Here it is *128not. The Board made no finding that the Union in picketing this employer was attempting to communicate with the company employees or to in any way further any of their rights, directly or indirectly. Quite the contrary appears from the record. There was no dispute between McBride and his employees. There was no effort upon the part of the Union to organize the employees. The employees were simply non-union, a right accorded them under the Act. The admitted effect of the picketing was one perhaps foreign to the immediate interests of the employees — to apply economic pressure upon the employer by preventing union deliveries to the job sites and diverting sympathetic customers away. Such picketing is a lawful method of furthering unionism. But the purpose of Sec. 7 is not to strengthen unionism but to protect employees in their right to make free choice.
The fact that violence forms the background of this inquiry neither sets nor restricts the power of the National Labor Relations Board in dealing with unfair labor practices. N. L. R. B. v. International Woodworkers of America, 5 Cir., 243 F.2d 745. Regardless of how reprehensible the conduct, Sec. 8 of the Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)) was not intended to confer on the Board general police power covering all acts of violence by a union or an employer, but prohibits only such acts as are directed against the exercise by employees of rights guaranteed by Sec. 7. N. L. R. B. v. Furriers Joint Council of N. Y., 2 Cir., 224 F.2d 78.
I am in accord with the statement of the majority that the employer’s “conduct displayed to the employees McBride's bitter opposition to unions and the extent of the measures he would resort to in resisting them.” But bitter opposition to unionism is not unlawful nor is its manifestation in a field remote from the rights of particular employees even though knowledge of the employer’s attitude may have an influence upon the subjective thinking of the employee. The attitude of the employer toward unionism always affects the employee’s consideration of unionism; sometimes favorably, sometimes unfavorably. But the manifestation of the employer’s attitude is not unlawful until it deters the specific rights of the employees under Sec. 7. The dispute here did not involve those rights. To enforce the Board order will but assure the Union a peaceful continuation of its promotion of unionism under the guise of protecting employees not involved in controversy and not within the shield of unionism. The Union rights should be protected under the police power of New Mexico not by according them under Sec. 7.
Although the main opinion states that the purpose of the picketing was to publicize and protest the payment of wages below union scales the Board made no finding -of any kind upon this subject. Absent a specific and supportable finding that the union picketing was related to the right of the employees to organize or refrain from organization I would deny enforcement.

. Time-O-Matic, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 7 Cir., 264 F.2d 96: discharge of employees for *128union activities; discriminatory prevention of union communication with employees. N.L.R.B. v. International Woodworkers, 5 Cir., 243 F.2d 745: violence to convince striking employees not to abandon strike. N.L.R.B. v. Local 140, United Furniture Workers, 2 Cir., 233 F.2d 539: violence to intimidate nonstriking employees when union workers were on strike. N.L.R.B. v. Continental Oil Co., 10 Cir., 159 F.2d 326: threats of reprisal if employees organized. Valley Mould & Iron Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 7 Cir., 116 F.2d 760: promotion by employer of one union and disparagement of another to coerce joining of former. N.L.R.B. V. Ford, 6 Cir., 170 F.2d 735: threats of discrimination against union employees. N.L.R.B. v. Ford Motor Co., 6 Cir., 114 F.2d 905: assaults to prevent distribution of union literature to employees.
See also cases involving violence: Republic Steel Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 3 Cir., 107 F.2d 472: attempt to dominate employee representation by terror. N.L. R.B. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 5 Cir., 179 F.2d 589: refusal to bargain with the employees’ chosen representative. N.L.R.B. v. Piedmont Wagon & Mfg. Co., 4 Cir., 176 F.2d 695: attempt to prevent union from organizing employees.