The opinion
RUTLEDGE, Associate Justice.
I concur in the order insofar as it modifies paragraph 2 (c) of the Board’s order by substituting for the words “will cease and desist as aforesaid” the language: “will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist * * But I do not regard the decision in N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S. -, 61 S.Ct. 693 , 85 L.Ed. -, March 3, 1941, as requiring elimination of paragraph 1 (c).
As I view this case, it falls, on the facts, somewhere between the Express Publishing Company case and N.L.R.B. v. Fansteel Corp., 1939, 306 U.S. 240 , 59 S.Ct. 490 , 83 L.Ed. 627 , 123 A.L.R. 599 , and the other cases which the Supreme Court distinguished in this respect. The former involved, as the majority regarded the case, a single violation of the Act, namely, refusal to bargain. The Fansteel case and others distinguished presented “not * * * isolated acts * * * like the refusal to bargain here, but * * * persistent attempts by .varying methods to interfere with the right of self-organization in circumstances from which the Board or the court found or could have found the threat of continuing and varying efforts to attain the same end in the future.” The Court did not hold an order like that contained in paragraph 1 (c) inappropriate in such circumstances. Until it does so, I think we are bound to uphold such an order, made in the Board’s administrative discretion, when circumstances of this character exist.
In my view they did exist in this case. The findings of the Board show, on evidence which I think fully sustains them, long-continued and persistent interference, restraint and coercion exercised by the employer toward the Guild and its members. These consisted in hostility and active opposition to the Guild evidenced by almost innumerable acts, violent denunciation, surveillance, and discriminatory discharges. Without reviewing the evidence or the findings, I think both the character and number of the acts on the one hand, and the length of time during which they were done on the other, were sufficient to warrant the Board in finding that they offered “the threat of continuing and varying efforts to attain the same end in the future.” In my judgment, therefore, paragraph 1 (c) of the Board’s order should be retained in the circumstances of this case.