Court Opinion

ID: 9451199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:09:47.766001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:36.721836
License: Public Domain

CASTLE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
In my opinion the record clearly demonstrates that the circulator of the union authorization cards, employee Marvin Dixon, understood, and that he gave the employees who signed the cards to understand, that the execution of the cards was for the purpose of obtaining an election in which they could express their choice on the question of union affiliation. The Union’s reliance upon such cards as evidencing its attainment of the status of collective bargaining representative for the employee unit involved is therefore not justified, and in such circumstances an order that the employer bargain with the union is improper. N.L.R.B. v. Koehler, 7 Cir., 328 F.2d 770. The fact that the employer was subjectively in “bad faith” in refusing to bargain with the Union — was unaware of the understanding of the circulator and the representation he had made to the other employees in obtaining their signatures — is not a basis for imposing a penalty on the employees in the form of representation by a Union *632they have not chosen to represent them. On the record in the instant case an order to bargain is inconsistent with the basic purposes of the National Labor Relations ' Act. It defeats, rather than contributes to, industrial peace and stability in labor-management relations.
I would deny enforcement of the Board’s order that the petitioner bargain with the Union.