Court Opinion

ID: 9455324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:18:43.874479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:33.230594
License: Public Domain

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I would not enforce, and would set aside, that portion of the Board’s order which set aside .the settlement agreement of the parties. The Trial Examiner found that nothing in the speech and letter violated the Act. Bu.t he found they "were not justified by the fact that they were true” because “the point is not whether the communication is a truthful or fair report; but whether there is a right .to communicate beyond the express form of communication worked out, agreed upon and approved.” He concluded that limitation on the right of free speech or communication was not involved, because the parties may agree upon and declare the extent of their communication.
It seems to me Alice in Wonderland to say that an employer may not, under his free speech privilege, make statements which are true and fair and do not otherwise violate the Act, revealing that he was induced to offer reinstatement *387and back pay by representations of the Board that they would not be accepted. I have considerable question whether the Board properly may induce an employer to enter a settlement by representing to him that it will be no more than a facade of words. But, if the Board does so, the courts need not, in the name of purchasing industrial peace, bar the employer from explaining that he was willing to play the charade because he was told that it would be harmless to him.