“Discriminatory conduct, such as that practiced here [where only union members received retroactive wages and vacation benefits], is inherently conducive to increased union membership. In this respect, there can be little doubt that it ‘encourages’ union membership, by increasing the number of workers who would like to join and/or their quantum of desire.”
How later courts described this case
- “Discriminatory conduct, such as that practiced here [where only union members received retroactive wages and vacation benefits], is inherently conducive to increased union membership. In this respect, there can be little doubt that it ‘encourages’ union membership, by increasing the number of workers who would like to join and/or their quantum of desire.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHASE
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with my brothers that the unfair labor practices found were established by the evidence and differ with them only in that I would enforce the order as made by the Board. As was said in International Association of Machinists, etc., v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U.S. 72, 82 , 61 S.Ct. 83, 89 , 85 L.Ed. 50 , “It is for the Board not the courts to determine how the effect of prior unfair labor practices may be expunged. National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U.S. 261, 271 , 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, it is not because the remedy itself is wrong but only because the Board has not acted upon • the union’s petition for certification, while the unfair labor practices of which the union is in part the beneficiary remain in *725 effect, that my brothers are withholding full enforcement. That seems to be such an unjustifiable interference with the power of the Board to exercise its sound discretion that I cannot subscribe to it.