Court Opinion

ID: 9454553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:49:46.982188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:09.896182
License: Public Domain

EDWARDS, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part; dissenting in part).
I concur with the result reached by the court, and I also join Judge Phillips’ *837opinion in all respects except that of the secondary boycott issue.
As I understand this record, Ritchie was the operator of a coal tipple with whom the United Mine Workers had a lawful primary labor dispute. The fact that this record discloses illegal mass picketing of Ritchie’s tipple or illegal violence at or near it certainly bears upon the common law conspiracy charged in this case. But such facts do not change a primary labor dispute into a secondary boycott. See my dissenting opinion in Riverside Coal Co., Inc. v. UMW (Jes-sup v. United Mine Workers), 410 F.2d 267 (6th Cir. 1969). Nor do I believe either, in the instance of a strike by an industrial union against a number of coal operators, that the fact that picketing at one operation might affect other struck operations serves to change primary activity into secondary activity.