the unfair labor practice must "significantly contribute to [the] loss of majority or to the factors upon which a doubt of such a majority is based"
How later courts described this case
- the unfair labor practice must "significantly contribute to [the] loss of majority or to the factors upon which a doubt of such a majority is based"
- employer may "show[] that the unfair labor practices did not significantly contribute to such a loss of majority"
- the unfair labor practice must “significantly contribute to [the] loss of majority or tó the factors upon which a doubt of such a majority is based”
- only 2 of 140 employees attended union meetings and only 2 plant visits by union: good faith doubt found to exist, but finding premised on filing of petition for decer-tification
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in all of the majority’s opinion except so much of it as holds the remark of Morris to be a § 8(a) (1) violation. To me the Court strains reason to reach this result. I cannot join in the attenuation and, indeed, the Court itself seems to have the same difficulty with the refinement.
After recognizing that the employer has “a right to express opposition to the unionization of its employees”, the Court continues: “Applying this standard, Morris’ statement, while a violation of § 8(a) (1), can hardly be considered a grave violation of § 8(a) (1). Not only was it an opinion based on his own personal experience, but the record shows that it did not grossly misstate the level *17 of union activity in the plant during the contract year.”
Notwithstanding, the Court now convicts the employer because of Morris’ observation. I cannot agree to such a judgment.