# National Labor Relations Board v. Nu-Southern Dyeing & Finishing, Inc., and Henderson Combining Co.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 28, 1971 · 444 F.2d 11

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9456998

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. NU-SOUTHERN DYEING & FINISHING, INC., and Henderson Combining Co., Respondents
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 28, 1971
- **Citations:** 444 F.2d 11
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Bryan
- **Judges:** Bryan, Winter, Butz-Ner
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9456998

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9456998. Public record. Not legal advice.