Richfield Oil Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

(concurring in the result).

I concur in the result, but do not concur in all that my associates (Judges DEN-MAN and STEPHENS) say in their opinion. My associates say:

These statements have no basis in the record. The matters stated are not known judicially and, if true, are, for present purposes, irrelevant. As to their truth or falsity, I express no opinion.

This case is before us upon the petition of Richfield Oil Corporation to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board issued against petitioner pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449 , U.S.C., 1940 Ed., Title 29, Sec. 151 et seq., 29 U.S. C.A. § 151 et seq., hereinafter called the Act. In its answer to the petition the Board requests that its order be enforced. The jurisdiction of this court is based upon Section 10(e) and (f) of the Act; petitioner, a Delaware corporation, has its principal place of business at Los Angeles, California, and transacts business within this judicial circuit.

The Board’s order directed petitioner to allow representatives of the Unions, 1 certified as the exclusive bargaining representatives of the unlicensed personnel in the deck and engineroom departments of petitioner’s tankers, to board its vessels so'that they may investigate and present grievances in behalf of the employees whom the Unions represent, collect union dues, and distribute the Unions’ newspaper among the union members. The order explicitly declares, however, that petitioner need not allow the union representatives to solicit…