Court Opinion

ID: 9459325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:17:24.537522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:07.205699
License: Public Domain

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring):
I concur in the result. The courts have recognized that the phrase in § 303(b), “whoever shall be injured in his business or property, cannot refer to injury in a “cause in fact” sense, else, as was pointed out on the floor of Congress,1 the section might give a cause of action to millions of persons for the same union activity. Recognizing that some rational limiting standard was intended by Congress, the courts have sought to articulate such a standard. Osborne,2 Gilchrist3 and Pennsylvania R.R.4 have expressed a standard consisting of analysis of the existence of a nexus or relationship between the plaintiff and the primary object of the secondary boycott, in the form of contractual or business arrangements and of physical congruence of facilities.5 The nexus was present in Gilchrist and sufficiently alleged in Pennsylvania R.R., but not present in Osborne.
The relationship or nexus test is not entirely satisfactory as a rational limitation on “whoever.” And at least some voices in Congress view with a jaundiced eye the efforts of the courts to prescribe a workable limitation.6 The method of analysis of the Sixth Circuit cases and of Pennsylvania R.R. is not binding upon us,7 and I have no objection to attempting to spell out for this circuit a standard more satisfactory than the “relationship” standard. The difficulty is that I am unable to understand what standard is being proposed. *14The majority opinion mentions “line of fire,” foreseeability of consequences,8 and threatening or undermining legitimate union interests.9
Because I am unable to perceive with assurance what is the test of § 303(b) liability proposed in the majority opinion I must, and do, concur only in the result.

. At times the cases have discussed whether plaintiff’s damages were too remote or incidental. E. g., Osborne, 279 F.2d at 729. This is a statement of an ultimate conclusion, the reason for which is that the precise relationship or nexus between the relevant parties, which the Osborne court had explored earlier in its opinion, id. at 727-728, is too far attenuated.

. See 1959 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm.News pp. 2382-2383.

. Abbott v. Local Union No. 142, 429 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1970) decided by this circuit, is a unique case of little assistance in o nr ¡iroblem. The nexus or relationship between the prime contractor (Abbott, Inc.) and the subcontractor (Moore), operating at the same construction site, was such that the union did not contest on appeal the corporation’s cause of action for damages but only the calculation of damages. It did, however, contest the rig-lit of tiie president, manager and alter ego of the corporation to damages suffered by him individually. The discussion of Osborne and Gilchrist did not concern the relationship between the neutral (Abbott, Inc.) and the primary employer (Moore) but the question of whether Abbott individually had such a close relationship to the corporation — in effect, he was the corporation, or stood in its shoes — that lie was within the ambit of the relationship between Abbott, Inc. and the subcontractor.

. Foreseeability may define far too wide a scope of exposure to liability. Presumably a union would never engage in an illegal secondary boycott for no reason at all but only with the expectation that impact will occur. Thus it would be unusual for damage to occur in a cause in fact sense and yet not be reasonably foreseeable. Additionally, a foreseeability standard seems to me much broader than the “direct line of fire.” While I am not certain of what is meant by the latter, I am inclined to think it is a much narrower gauge than the former.

. A union might be subjected to a claim for $1,000 damages for illegal secondary activity, which it might survive, but could it be subjected to a claim by another person similarly situated for $1,000,000 damages, which might destroy the union or render it impotent to pursue its legitimate objectives? Or do dollars have any relevance?