Court Opinion

ID: 9465583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:50:12.268578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:15.331458
License: Public Domain

LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority has in effect remanded to the Board for further consideration in the light of the Supreme Court’s Beth Israel decision.1
It is hard to quarrel with a remand for reconsideration in the light of a Supreme Court ruling. But my reasons for believing that the Board’s order as it stands should be affirmed and enforced as to the cafeteria and machine areas,2 are entirely congruent with, and indeed are reinforced by, the Beth Israel decision. While there are some differences in the fact situations, they do not seem to me to be material to the rule of the Baylor Medical Center involved in this case. Baylor’s rule was a strict prohibition of solicitation. I do not see how it can stand consistently with Beth Israel.
Determining whether a different rule would be valid requires that the hospital take the initiative and is not, as the court’s *1297remand supposes, dependent in the first instance on the Board. The court suggests that Baylor might propose a new rule (p. - of 193 U.S.App.D.C., p. 1296 of 593 F.2d). This is salutary, but it does not cure the basic problem that the majority puts the onus on the Board to proceed.
I would therefore affirm and order enforcement forthwith of that part of the Board’s order that required the Baylor University Medical Center to cease and desist from enforcing the rule it has promulgated.

. Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 98 S.Ct. 2463, 57 L.Ed.2d 370 (1978). The mandate would also permit some reconsideration of the order as to the vending machine areas, dependent on findings.

. See Baylor Univ. Medical Center v. NLRB, 188 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 118-19, 578 F.2d 351, 360-61 (Leventhal, J., dissenting), vacated and remanded, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 299, 58 L.Ed.2d 202 (1978).