Court Opinion

ID: 9443324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:17:39.424225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:27.086456
License: Public Domain

CHASE
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with my brothers that the unfair labor practices found were established by the evidence and differ with them only in that I would enforce the order as made by the Board. As was said in International Association of Machinists, etc., v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U.S. 72, 82, 61 S.Ct. 83, 89, 85 L.Ed. 50, “It is for the Board not the courts to determine how the effect of prior unfair labor practices may be expunged. National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U.S. 261, 271, 58 S.Ct. 571, 576, 82 L.Ed. 831; National Labor Relations Board v. Falk Corp., 308 U.S. 453, 461, 60 S.Ct. 307, 311, 84 L.Ed. 396.” Indeed, it is not because the remedy itself is wrong but only because the Board has not acted upon • the union’s petition for certification, while the unfair labor practices of which the union is in part the beneficiary remain in *725effect, that my brothers are withholding full enforcement. That seems to be such an unjustifiable interference with the power of the Board to exercise its sound discretion that I cannot subscribe to it.