industry supervisor participated actively in union affairs with the knowledge of his employer. The court affirmed the Board’s finding that the employer violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (2) and concluded that the Board need not show the existence of an actual agency relationship before an employer can be charged with union activities of its supervisory employees. Rather, the D.C. Circuit recognized a broader principle — namely, that such known participation by a supervisor in union affairs is properly characterized as interference that is actionable under the Act since it conflicts with the Act’s clear policy to free the collective bargaining process from all taint of an employer’s influence. Local 636, 287 F.2d at 361. See also Mon River Towing, Inc. v. NLRB, 421 F.2d 1, 8 (3d Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>); NLRB v. International Typographical Union,
recognizing that the involvement of supervisory union members in union affairs conflicts with the need to assure the complete devotion of union negotiating teams to employee interests holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted recognizing union members vital concern in preserving jobs for union members holding that a rico action by union members was properly dismissed where any financial improprieties occurred with union funds and directly injured solely the union recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union