Court Opinion

ID: 9442345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:44:30.141895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:04.107221
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
To establish the allegations of its complaint, the National Labor Relations Board 1 relied almost entirely on the testimony of the witness, Trujillo. Trujillo’s relations with 'his employers 'had followed an unusual pattern. From September, 1945, to February, 1946, he was employed by the Ellis Canning Company at Denver, Colorado. *73Shortly after leaving the employment of the Ellis Company, he caused charges of unfair labor practices to be filed against the Canning Company with the Board. From May 30, 1946, to June 9, 1946, he worked for the Great Western Mushroom Company at Denver. On the latter date, he was discharged and shortly thereafter he caused charges of unfair labor practices to be filed against the Mushroom Company. He went to work for the Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills 2 on June 10, 1946, and discontinued his employment with the respondent on October 16, 1946. Thereupon, he caused charges of unfair labor practices to be filed with the Board against the respondent.
At the time he applied for employment with the respondent, he misrepresented the facts with respect to his previous employment. During that employment when he requested a leave of absence, he made untrue statements to Naas, Superintendent of the respondent. When he testified in the instant case before the Examiner, he stated that he was then employed in a coal mine at Brilliant, New Mexico, when, in fact, he was then working for the Wires Specialty Company in Denver, Colorado.
We know that 'one of the techniques employed by the Communists to accomplish their avowed end of destroying our economic system is to foment industrial strife, disrupt peaceable relations between employer and employees, and inspire strikes. Ordinarily, on cross-examination, it is not proper to -inquire into the political affiliation of the witness. However, in the instant case, I think it was proper to inquire on cross-examination of Trujillo whether he was a member of the Communist Party and ■whether he adhered to the tenets of that party to bring about industrial strife, disrupt peaceable relations between employer and employees, and to inspire strikes.2
3 It seems to me that, under the circumstances of this case, if Trujillo was a member of the Communist Party and adhered to the tenet referred to above, those facts should have been considered by the Examiner and the Board in weighing the testimony of Trujillo, -and in determining whether the processes of the Board were being abused to aid the accomplishment of an unlawful objective.4
It is my opinion that the case shoul-d be remanded for further proceedings in accordance 'with the views I have expressed.

. Hereinafter called tlie Board.

. Hereinafter called the respondent.

. See Henderson v. Dreyfus, 26 N.M. 541, 191 P. 442, 453.

. See National Labor Relations Board v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., 318 U.S. 9, 18, 63 S.Ct. 394, 87 L.Ed. 579.