Court Opinion

ID: 9444105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:41:43.855582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:43.199372
License: Public Domain

RIVES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
For reasons well expressed in the decision of the Board, 102 N.L.R.B. No. 38, I respectfully dissent. The things stated in footnote 2 to the majority opinion are not all that the Board found. It adopted also the findings of the trial examiner, including his finding that: “Mulligan and Becnel, as officers of the Independent, made several other trips on working time, and Mulligan made yet another with Barker to New Orleans, all without loss of pay.”1
Some of the things that respondents did for the Independent might fairly be construed as mere kindnesses and courtesies and not to amount to “support” if they stood separately and alone. When, however, those things are considered all together, it seems to me that there was substantial evidence to justify the Board’s conclusion. As said by the Supreme Court in. National Labor Relations Board v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 319 U.S. 50, 60, 63 S.Ct. 905, 910, 87 L.Ed. 1250:
“Its conclusion is an inference of fact which may not be set aside upon judicial review because the courts would have drawn a different inference. National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U.S. 261, 270, 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 to me, the conclusion reached by the Board appears to be reasonable and right.
The philosophy underlying the National Labor Relations Act was primarily, a matter for the consideration of the Congress, and the business of the courts is simply to construe and apply the Act of the legislative body. Section 8(a) (2) is too clearly written, it seems to me, to admit of doubt in its construction:

“Unfair labor practices

“(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
******
“(2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it; Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 156 of this title, an employer shall not be prohibited from permit-ing employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay;” 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (a) (2).
The proviso makes plain what the Congress meant by the expression “contribute financial or other support to it.” 2 *325When Congress considered the proviso necessary before an employer could even permit employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay, how can it be doubted that permitting the Independent’s officers to take not one but four trips on company time without loss of pay, two of those trips in respondents’ motor vehicles, and one of them with all expenses paid by respondents, amounted to contributing “financial or other support to it”?
The declared policy of the Act is to be effectuated “by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.” 29 U.S.C.A. § 151. The most direct and probably the most certain way to defeat that policy is for management to favor unduly, to “support”, the representatives of labor. Under the Act, that is wrong. It is the same type of wrong that selfish interests sometimes commit when they bestow their favors upon legislators, or that an adversary might attempt by giving free trips to his opponent’s attorney. Encouraging such practices is of no lasting help either to management or to labor, and certainly does not point the way to industrial peace and friendship. That other companies or labor unions may indulge in the same or similar practices, if that be a fact,3 is no defense and makes the acts no less reprehensible. The employees are entitled to be represented by a union independent, not in name, but in fact, wholly uninfluenced by favors from management. In this respect, Congress has prescribed a strict standard of integrity, and that standard should not be loosened by the Court’s construction. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.

. There is no contention that the evidence fails to sustain that finding. I quote only a part of the most pertinent testimony of Mr. Becnel, Secretary and Treasurer of the Independent Union:
“Q. How far is Thibodaux from Valentine, from the Valentine plant? A. Twenty-five or twenty-six miles.
“Q. Whose car did you go in when you went down there? A. I went in my car once.
“Q. How about the other times? A. The other time, the last time I went in Mr. Mulligan’s car and I think once we went in the company truck.
“Trial Examiner Buchanan: You went three times?
“The Witness: I think we made three trips. We went back to get the sample ballots and have a campaign letter written up for the Independent Union.
“Q. (By Mr. Kyle) As I understand it, these trips were made during the work day and you didn’t lose any time? A. I did not lose any time.
“Q. By that I mean, you didn’t loss any money out of your check? A. I was not docked. No.”

. This is, of course, an alternative provision and support of a labor organization alone, without domination, violates Section 8(a) (2). Harrison Sheet Steel Co. v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 194 F.2d 407, 410; Wyman-Gordon Co. v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 153 F.2d 480, 482; Reliance Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 125 F.2d 311, 314.

. The majority arrives at that conclusion through the consideration of evidence preferred but not received, a practice that seems to me totally indefensible. See my dissent from, tbe same majority in N. L. R. B. v. Southeastern pipe Line Co., 5 Cir., 210 F.2d 643.