Court Opinion

ID: 9464909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:46:09.481768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:52.749194
License: Public Domain

GEE, Circuit Judge,
Specially Concurring:
I concur in the result and in all of the court’s opinion save its ascertaining of a “complete absence of anti-union animus” as a factor which distinguishes this from the Johns-Manville situation.1 In the first place I do not think there was such a complete absence in Johns-Manville; an employer who gives as some of his reasons for a lock-out “the Union’s unreasonable demands, unresponsive attitude and willful acts, as well as [a] history of sabotage” as did Johns-Manville (557 F.2d at 1131) seems to me to be rather clearly evidencing some animus against the union. In the second, I think it somewhat unrealistic to expect employers under the sort of attack evidenced by the facts of Johns-Manville to preserve an entire absence of anti-union animus. If this be made a condition of relief, only saints will receive it.

. Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 557 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1977).