finding that status of a low-level supervisor does not in itself negate liability
How later courts described this case
- finding that status of a low-level supervisor does not in itself negate liability
- noting that "[f]riends can unlawfully threaten their friends" and "[Wa]rnings of Company retaliation cast as friendly advice from a familiar associate might be more credible, hence, more offensive to § 8(a)(1)"
- noting that “[fjriends can unlawfully threaten their friends” and “[Wa]rnings of Company retaliation cast as friendly advice from a familiar associate might be more credible, hence, more offensive to § 8(a)(1)”
- finding that status of *565 a low-level supervisor does not in itself negate liability
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GEE, Circuit Judge,
Specially Concurring:
I concur in the result and in all of the court’s opinion save its ascertaining of a “complete absence of anti-union animus” as a factor which distinguishes this from the Johns-Manville situation. 1 In the first place I do not think there was such a complete absence in Johns-Manville; an employer who gives as some of his reasons for a lock-out “the Union’s unreasonable demands, unresponsive attitude and willful acts, as well as [a] history of sabotage” as did Johns-Manville (557 F.2d at 1131) seems to me to be rather clearly evidencing some animus against the union. In the second, I think it somewhat unrealistic to expect employers under the sort of attack evidenced by the facts of Johns-Manville to preserve an entire absence of anti-union animus. If this be made a condition of relief, only saints will receive it.
. Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 557 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1977).