—declared that the Board's retrospective requirement of reimbursement was "inappropriate and arbitrary."

—the court found it unnecessary to pass on the Mountain Pacific rule since actual discrimination had been proved.

In my view, the fact that the discriminating entity here is a union hiring hall, and not a person or corporation which has a traditional agent-principal relationship with the employer, does not alter this analysis.

This court will overturn the Board's choice of a dues reimbursement remedy only where the reimbursement is shown to be punitive rather than compensatory or where the Board orders reimbursement absent a showing that employees were coerced in their choice of a bargaining representative.

Similarly, his delegation to the union of an employer function such as hiring gives rise to derivative liability in him if the union discriminates in its performance of that function.

In an extreme display of verbal overkill, one court labeled an order "punitive, penal, non-remedial and... unauthorized...."

[PDF] Recent Developments in the Creation of Effective Remedies Under the National …

[CITATION] Fair Employment Practice Cases