“[W]e conclude that, if the conduct complained of otherwise violated [the NLRA interference provision], good faith is no defense. The cases clearly demonstrate that it is the tendency of an employer’s conduct to interfere with the rights of his employees protected by [the NLRA inter *206 ference provision], rather than his motives, that is controlling.”
How later courts described this case
- “[W]e conclude that, if the conduct complained of otherwise violated [the NLRA interference provision], good faith is no defense. The cases clearly demonstrate that it is the tendency of an employer’s conduct to interfere with the rights of his employees protected by [the NLRA inter *206 ference provision], rather than his motives, that is controlling.”
- “[I]f the conduct complained of otherwise violated Section 8(a)(1), good faith is no defense. The cases clearly demonstrate that it is the tendency of an employer’s conduct to interfere with the rights of his employees protected by Section 8(a)(1), rather than his motives, that is controlling.”
- NLRB’s order that “the company should cease and desist from interrogating the New York employees concerning their [union] membership” (a violation of the National Labor Relations Act) was “purely remedial”
- "cases clearly demonstrate that it is the tendency of an employer's conduct to interfere with the rights of his employees protected by Section 8(a)(1), rather than his motives, that is control- ling"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MARSHALL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent from the portion of the majority opinion that denies enforcement to the portion of the order requiring the reinstatement of Axelrod. This admittedly close question was resolved by the Trial Examiner and the Board and there is sufficient evidence to support their decision.
On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM:
Petition denied.
MARSHALL, Circuit Judge, dissents.