MacKINNON, Circuit Judge:

This case is before us on the petition of the Western Addition Community Organization to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board which dismissed a complaint issued against The Emporium (hereinafter referred to as the Company) for alleged violations of section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Company is engaged in the operation of a retail department store in San Francisco, and was a member of a multi-employer group, the Retailer's Council, which served as its bargaining agent. The Retailer's Council, was a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement with the Department Store Employees Union (hereinafter the Union) which was the exclusive representative of the Company's employees employed in the stock and marking areas at the store. The applicable collective bargaining agreement contained an anti-discrimination clause, and provided that grievances arising out of the agreement "may be referred to the Adjustment Board," and possibly submitted to arbitration. The agreement also contained no-strike and no-lockout clauses.

In a series of meetings in early April 1968, a group of Company employees including Tom Hawkins and James Joseph Hollins submitted to the Union representatives a list of grievances in which the employees contended that the Company was discriminating against racial minorities. Claiming that racial bias had caused minority employees to be denied promotions, the employees at the outset centered their complaint and specifically charged that employee Russel Young had been denied advancement solely because he was Black. Following these meetings, Union Secretary-Treasurer Walter Johnson designated a Union committee to investigate the allegations, and later that month prepared a detailed report outlining the employees' contentions which "raised . . . the possibility [not solely of Young's complaint but] of racial discrimination." (Emphasis added.) Shortly thereafter, Johnson presented his report to the Retailer's Council, where it was agreed that the grievances should be taken directly to the Company. Accordingly, in mid-April Johnson met with the Company labor relations manager and it was agreed that the Company "would look into" the situation and "see what they could do."

In May, a group of ten employees requested an additional meeting with Johnson. The problem of racial discrimination in general and the Russel Young case in particular were again discussed; however, since Young was about to begin his summer vacation, it was agreed that further investigation of the matter should await his return. On about September 3, Johnson again met with the employees, including Hawkins and Hollins, and with representatives of the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) and the Economic Opportunity Council (EOC), and announced that the Union had considered the problem and had concluded that the Company had been acting discriminatorily. Further, the Union stated that it would demand an Adjustment Board proceeding and would insist upon arbitration if necessary. While acknowledging that arbitration was a time-consuming procedure, Johnson pointed out that the arbitration award, once achieved, would produce a "long lasting effect" which would benefit not only the employees having immediate interest in the problem, but "other people involved in it" as well.

However, the program outlined by Johnson did not satisfy all of the employees. Some of those present expressed "frustration" with the situation and requested that the Union picket the Company's store. Johnson rejected the idea and explained that the Union was bound to seek satisfaction of grievances according to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. He also stated that though he told the minority employees, including Hawkins and Hollins, that it was his advice that they follow the Adjustment Board and arbitration procedures, he stated that "if they wanted to take any other action they could do it as individuals and do whatever they wanted as individuals." The EOC and FEPC representatives also recommended that the contract procedures be followed.

The next day Johnson wrote the general manager of the Retailer's Council requesting a meeting of the Adjustment Board to resolve the grievances discussed at the previous day's meeting. Johnson told the Council

We specifically charge the Emporium with violations of [the anti-discrimination clause] of the Agreement between the San Francisco Retailers Council and [the Union]. We have approximately 120 pages of testimony, recorded by a court reporter to substantiate our position.

We are ready to proceed to immediate arbitration if the Emporium is agreeable.

In response to this letter, on October 16 a meeting was convened of the Adjustment Board.

As the meeting began, Union Agent Williams attempted to present evidence of the Company's practices by questioning employees regarding their individual grievances. However, he was interrupted by Hollins who, speaking for himself and three other employees, read a prepared statement objecting to the prosecution of grievances on an individual basis. Those employees did not want to "speak as individuals," but would act only "as a group." Further, Hollins stated that the group "wanted to talk to the President of the Emporium and wouldn't talk to anybody else," since their "main purpose was to talk to the President to try to reach an agreement with him to straighten out the problems and conditions of the Emporium." Then, after refusing to give any testimony regarding individual employees' complaints, the four walked out of the meeting. A second meeting was held of the Adjustment Board two days later, but none of the four attended.

Shortly thereafter, Hollins went to the Company president requesting that they "talk about a situation that [Hollins] felt should be discussed about things that were happening among minority employees at the store." The Company president would not speak to Hollins, but suggested that he talk instead to the Company's personnel director. Hollins refused to talk to the personnel manager, having previously spoken to him about the situation.

Hawkins and Hollins, together with several other employees, called a press conference on October 22 which was attended by representatives of the press, radio and television. The employees stated that the Emporium was engaging in racist conduct by discriminating against racial minorities and that the employees were planning to picket the store. Hollins also read a handbill which the group intended to distribute to the public, and further stated that they "were planning on leafleting and boycotting the store because [they] felt that employees were not being treated fairly, minority employees were not being treated fairly as far as working conditions was [ sic] concerned." On the following Saturday, November 2, Hollins, Hawkins and two other employees picketed the store from 9:30 a. m. to 6 p. m., distributing the following handbill to people entering and leaving the store:

BEWARE EMPORIUM SHOPPERS [11] BOYCOTT IS ON!!!

FOR YEARS AT THE EMPORIUM BLACK, BROWN, YELLOW, AND RED PEOPLE, HAVE WORKED AT THE LOWEST JOBS, AT THE LOWEST LEVELS. TIME AND AGAIN WE HAVE SEEN INTELLIGENT HARD WORKING BROTHERS AND SISTERS DENIED PROMOTIONS AND BASIC RESPECT.

THE EMPORIUM IS A 20TH CENTURY COLONIAL PLANTATION THE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ARE BEING TREATED THE SAME WAY AS OUR BROTHERS ARE BEING TREATED IN THE SLAVE MINES OF SOUTH AFRICA.

WHENEVER THE RACIST PIG AT THE EMPORIUM INJURES OR HARMS A BLACK SISTER OR BROTHER, THEY INJURE AND INSULT ALL BLACK PEOPLE. THE EMPORIUM MUST PAY FOR THESE INSULTS. THEREFORE, WE ENCOURAGE ALL OF OUR PEOPLE TO TAKE THEIR MONEY OUT OF THIS RACIST STORE, UNTIL BLACK PEOPLE HAVE FULL EMPLOYMENT AND ARE PROMOTED JUSTLY THROUGHOUT THE EMPORIUM.

WE WELCOME THE SUPPORT OF OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS FROM THE CHURCHES, UNION, SORORITIES, FRATERNITIES, SOCIAL CLUBS, AFRO-AMERICAN INSTITUTE, BLACK PANTHER PARTY, W.A.C.O. AND THE POOR PEOPLE'S INSTITUTE. While the picketing was in progress, Johnson spoke with Hollins telling him that he did not want to see Hollins fired and suggested that the only way to resolve the matter was through arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement. Hollins responded that they only wanted to talk with the Company president.

On November 7 Hollins and Hawkins were called to the office of the Company's manager of labor relations and given a written warning to refrain from the picketing or possibly be fired. Despite this warning, the two again picketed the store and distributed leaflets the following Saturday. Accordingly, on Monday, November 11, Hollins and Hawkins were fired. The Union subsequently filed a protest with the Retailer's Council challenging the discharges of Hollins and Hawkins, though the Union did not initiate the present action.

On November 19, 1968 the Western Addition Community Organization filed a charge with the N.L.R.B. alleging that the Company had violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging Hollins and Hawkins. A complaint was issued and a hearing was held on April 8, 1969 before Trial Examiner William E. Spencer. He found that petitioners had engaged in "concerted activity" within the meaning of section 7 of the Act, and that these actions had been based on a good faith belief that the company was actually discriminating against racial minorities. The Trial Examiner next examined whether these concerted activities lost their protection by virtue of the boycott appeal and the invective used against the Company. Though he criticized the language, and found "the potential for injury [to the Company] considerable," he expressed no conclusion on this issue. Finally, he examined the issue of whether the concerted activities lost their protection because they were "inconsistent with and disruptive of" the procedures for settling grievances under the collective bargaining agreement to such a degree that it "would not effectuate the policies of the Act to extend its protection to such activities." The Trial Examiner found that the activities were unprotected and recommended that the complaint be dismissed. He reasoned that to protect such conduct

would seriously undermine the right of employees to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, handicap and prejudice the employee's duly designated representative in its efforts to bring about a durable improvement in working conditions among employees belonging to racial minorities, and place on the Employer an unreasonable burden of attempting to placate self-designated representatives of minority groups while abiding by the terms of a valid bargaining agreement and attempting in good faith to meet whatever demands the bargaining representative put forth under that agreement.

The Board affirmed the rulings of the Trial Examiner, and adopted his findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Two members dissented.

I

Section 7 of the Act protects employees from discharge for engaging in protests against their employer's racially discriminatory practices. N.L.R.B. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd., 349 F.2d 1, 4 (9th Cir. 1965); Mason-Rust, 179 NLRB 434 (1969); Washington State Service Employees State Council No. 18, 188 NLRB No. 141 (1970). Such protests in favor of non-discriminatory working conditions are "concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining," within the meaning of that section. Extending the protection of section 7 to such protests is but one aspect of the national labor policy which unequivocally rejects racial discrimination in employment. See, e.g., New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552, 58 S.Ct. 703, 82 L.Ed. 1012 (1938).

Another aspect of national labor policy, and certainly a central tenet of the Act's structure, is set out in section 9(a) which provides that the representatives of the bargaining unit "shall be the exclusive representatives for all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of employment" (emphasis added). Recently, in N.L.R.B. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175, 87 S.Ct. 2001, 18 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1967) the Supreme Court underscored the purpose of the exclusivity principle enunciated in section 9(a):

National labor policy has been built on the premise that by pooling their economic strength and acting through a labor organization freely chosen by the majority, the employees of an appropriate unit have the most effective means of bargaining for improvements in wages, hours, and working conditions. The policy therefore extinguishes the individual employee's power to order his own relations with his employer and creates a power vested in the chosen representative to act in the interests of all employees. "Congress has seen fit to clothe the bargaining representative with powers comparable to those possessed by a legislative body both to create and restrict the rights of those whom it represents. . . ." Steele v. Louisville N.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 202 [ 65 S.Ct. 226, 232, 89 L.Ed. 173]. Thus only the union may contract the employee's terms and conditions of employment and provisions for processing his grievances; the union may even bargain away his right to strike during the contract term, and his right to refuse to cross a lawful picket line. The employee may disagree with many of the union decisions but is bound by them. "The majority-rule concept is today unquestionably at the center of our federal labor policy." "The complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected. A wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion." Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 [ 73 S.Ct. 681, 686, 97 L.Ed. 1048].

388 U.S. at 180, 87 S.Ct. at 2006 (footnotes omitted). See also, J. I. Case v. Labor Board, 321 U.S. 332, 64 S.Ct. 576, 88 L.Ed. 762 (1944).

Similarly, the legislative history of section 9(a) emphasizes that the primary purpose of giving the elected representative the exclusive right to represent all members of the bargaining unit in discussions with the employer over working conditions was to prevent the situation where two or more agreements might be negotiated by splinter groups which treated various factions of the bargaining unit unequally. The House Report summarized the purposes of section 9(a) thusly:

The underlying purposes of the majority rule principle are simple and just. As has frequently been stated, collective bargaining is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end, and that end is the making of collective agreements stabilizing employment relations for a period of time, with results advantageous both to the worker and the employer. There cannot be two or more basic agreements applicable to workers in a given unit; this is virtually conceded on all sides. If the employer should fail to give equally advantageous terms to nonmembers of the labor organization negotiating the agreement, there would immediately result a marked increase in the membership of that labor organization. On the other hand, if better terms were given to nonmembers, this would give rise to bitterness and strife, and a wholly unworkable arrangement whereby men performing comparable duties were paid according to different scales of wages and hours. Clearly then, there must be one basic scale, and it must apply to all.

H.R. Rep. No. 1147 on S. 1958, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. at 20, in II Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935 (N.L.R.B. 1949) at 3069. Unequal treatment of members of the same bargaining unit could only produce bitterness, strife, and, ultimately, industrial instability — a prime target at which the Act was aimed. 29 U.S.C. § 151 (1970). Additionally, the cases have noted that the exclusivity of the bargaining representative helps to preserve an orderly procedure for collective bargaining by precluding the employer from bargaining with splinter groups. Medo Photo Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 678, 685, 64 S.Ct. 830, 88 L.Ed. 1007 (1944).

These objectives of section 9(a) have been effectuated by provisions within the Act which restrict employers' conduct and case law which has restricted employees' conduct which interferes with that section. It is an unfair labor practice under sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act for an employer to refuse to bargain with the duly elected union representative or to engage in bargaining with splinter groups. Medo Photo Corp. v. N.L.R.B., supra. Similarly, the rights protected by section 7, for employees to engage in concerted activity, have been held to be somewhat limited by section 9(a), though the boundaries of that limitation are by no means definite. The cases have not produced a uniform approach to determine when concerted activity by a minority of employees loses the protection of section 7 due to a conflict with the exclusivity of the bargaining representative provided by section 9(a). One approach has been to protect minority concerted activity, such as walkouts or picketing, whenever it is not in derogation of the union's position on the matter in question, i.e., when the concerted activity supports the position taken by the union. See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. R.C. Can Co., 328 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1964); Western Contracting Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 322 F.2d 893 (10th Cir. 1963).

Another approach, and now apparently more widely accepted, has been to find the minority concerted activity protected only when it is not disruptive of the concept of orderly collective bargaining, regardless of whether the activity might be deemed to be supportive of the union's position. See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd., 419 F.2d 216 (9th Cir. 1969); cf. N.L.R.B. v. Shop Rite Foods, 430 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1970). In Tanner, supra, two employees were discharged for picketing their employer in protest over its racially discriminatory hiring practices. The two employees had not attempted to utilize their union representative to remedy the situation, and the union's position on their claims was not known. Though the court agreed that such picketing was concerted activity within section 7, it found that section 9(a) deprived the picketing of the protection to which it otherwise would have been entitled. The court specifically rejected the rationale of R. C. Can, supra, and reasoned that the concept of orderly collective bargaining could only be promoted if employees were held to have "an obligation to go to the union with their desire for non-discriminatory hiring." An analogous position has been taken by a number of courts with respect to "wild cat" strikes which hold that such minority activity is so disruptive of collective bargaining that it can never be protected by section 7. Lee A. Consaul Co. v. N.L.R.B., 469 F.2d 84 (9th Cir. 1972); N.L.R.B. v. Sunbeam Lighting Co., 318 F.2d 661 (7th Cir. 1963); Plasti-Line, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 278 F.2d 482 (6th Cir. 1960); Harnischfeger Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 207 F.2d 575 (7th Cir. 1953); N.L.R.B. v. Draper Corp., 145 F.2d 199 (4th Cir. 1944).

II

With this brief discussion of section 9(a) and the cases interpreting the interplay between it and section 7, we examine the application of the exclusivity principle to the minority concerted activities in this case. We conclude that the Board's decision that these concerted activities were not protected by the Act is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and must be reversed. As our discussion below makes clear, we base this conclusion on the distinction between concerted activity involving racially discriminatory employment practices and concerted activity involving other working conditions, an analysis of the exclusivity principle, and the particular facts of this case. We recognize the important role played by the exclusivity principle in collective bargaining and feel that our decision here in no way hampers that role. In part III, infra, we note that on remand the Board may consider the issue of disloyalty.

A. Concerted Activity Involving Racial Discrimination

The right of an employee to racially non-discriminatory treatment is unquestionably a "condition of employment," and as such the negotiation of an anti-discrimination clause in a collective bargaining agreement is within the purview of the exclusive bargaining enunciated in section 9(a). Yet, this right to non-discriminatory treatment differs significantly from other "conditions of employment" which are also the subject of exclusive bargaining, such as pension benefits or seniority rights. The right to be free of racially discriminatory employment practices does not depend upon the presence of an anti-discrimination clause in a collective bargaining agreement, but is firmly rooted in the law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; United Packinghouse Workers Union v. N.L.R.B., 135 U.S.App.D.C. 111, 416 F.2d 1126, cert. denied, Farmer's Co-op Compress v. United Packinghouse etc., 396 U.S. 903, 90 S.Ct. 216, 24 L.Ed.2d 179 (1969). Even in the absence of such a clause in a collective bargaining agreement, an employer would be equally restrained from engaging in such practices.

Not only does concerted activity involving racial discrimination have a unique status in that the subject matter has independent statutory bases, but section 704(a) of Title VII precludes an employer from discharging employees in retaliation for peaceful picketing of the employer's business in protest of allegedly discriminatory racial practices. Cf. Green v. McDonnell-Douglas Corp., 463 F.2d 337, 341 (8th Cir. 1972), aff'd, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Where, as here, both the subject matter of the concerted activity and the right to engage in such activity are safeguarded by legislation, we feel such concerted activity cannot be treated identically with other concerted activity which is not so safeguarded for the purpose of determining whether it so violated section 9(a) as to lose section 7 protection.

Neither the Trial Examiner nor the Board took cognizance of the statutory bases of the rights involved in their evaluation of the undermining effect of these concerted activities to section 9(a). While these activities are the subject of review by the Board only because they are deemed to be "concerted activities" within section 7 and also involving "conditions of employment" within section 9(a), the Board has an obligation in construing the acts which it administers to recognize, and sometimes reconcile, coexisting and perhaps inconsistent policies embodied in other legislation. As the Supreme Court noted in Southern Steamship Co. v. N.L.R.B., 316 U.S. 31, 47, 62 S.Ct. 886, 894, 86 L.Ed. 1246 (1942):

[T]he Board has not been commissioned to effectuate the policies of the Labor Relations Act so single-mindedly that it may wholly ignore other and equally important Congressional objectives. Frequently the entire scope of Congressional purpose calls for careful accommodation of one statutory scheme to another, and it is not too much to demand of an administrative body that it undertake this accommodation without excessive emphasis upon its immediate task.

See also, Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 456-458, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1958); cf. McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, 321 U.S. 67, 79-80, 64 S.Ct. 370, 88 L.Ed. 544 (1944); Northern Natural Gas Co. v. F. P. C., 130 U.S.App.D.C. 220, 226-228, 399 F.2d 953, 959-961 (1968). Thus, the Board should have recognized that in light of Title VII, concerted activity involving racial discrimination is quite distinct from other concerted activity.

B. Interference with Section 9(a)

As we noted previously, the exclusivity principle enunciated in section 9(a) of the Act was premised on the concept of majority rule. This concept — that what was best for the union was best for the individual — recognized that collective bargaining could not proceed where various factions within the bargaining unit were free to present conflicting or unequal demands to the employer. Subjection of the will of the individual to the will of the majority was the method Congress chose to preserve industrial peace and stability over matters in which individuals would most likely disagree. However, on the issue of whether to tolerate racial discrimination in employment the individuals in a union cannot legally disagree. The law does not give the union an option to tolerate some racial discrimination, but declares that all racial discrimination in employment is illegal. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1970). Therefore, the underlying premise of section 9(a) that the will of the individual must be subjected to the will of the majority does not authorize the approval of racially discriminatory employment practices, because the purposes of the minority group and the union in desiring to eradicate racial discrimination in employment cannot be at odds. Accordingly, concerted activity involving racial discrimination involves other factors than the major premise that underlies section 9(a).

While concerted activity over actual racial discrimination differs significantly from concerted activity over other working conditions and does not defeat the underlying premise of section 9(a), nonetheless we recognize that such activity as was engaged in here does interfere to a certain extent with the collective bargaining process. In abandoning the grievance procedures and seeking to bargain on their own, the picketers here rendered essentially ineffective the method of remedying grievances chosen by their collective bargaining representative and provided by the collective bargaining agreement. We cannot agree with the Board, however, that this limited interference alone is sufficient to remove these concerted activities here from the protection of the Act.

First, we note that petitioners did not immediately proceed to settle their dispute with the Company over racial discrimination on their own, but utilized the procedures provided by the collective bargaining agreement for several months. Thus, the situation was quite different, and less disruptive of collective bargaining, than the one confronted by the Ninth Circuit in Tanner, supra, where no attempt had been made to utilize the union representative or the contract procedures before engaging in minority concerted activity. We agree with Tanner that even when racial issues are at stake, one should be required to submit such disputes first to the union before one resorts to minority concerted activity. Without such a requirement, parties aggrieved by racially discriminatory employment practices would have little incentive to use the grievance procedures in the agreement, and certainly national labor policy favors the use of grievance-arbitration procedures to settle labor disputes, see, e.g., Boys Markets Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U.S. 235, 242-243, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 26 L.Ed.2d 199 (1970), even when they involve racial discrimination. Though the exact role of grievance-arbitration procedures in enforcing rights created by Title VII is presently the subject of considerable dispute, see Meltzer, Labor Arbitration and Overlapping and Conflicting Remedies for Employment Discrimination, 39 U.Chi.L. Rev. 30 (1971), we think grievance-arbitration procedures can play an important role in remedying racial discrimination in employment and should be encouraged. See, e.g., Hutchings v. United States Industries, 428 F.2d 303, 309 (5th Cir. 1970).

Second, we find it significant that the Union and the petitioners were not working at cross-purposes, but were both attempting to eradicate racially discriminatory employment practices. There was no disruption of orderly collective bargaining in the sense that a minority of employees were not attempting here to speak for the majority as in the case where a minority group engages in a "wildcat" strike during company-union negotiations in an attempt to express a rejection of a company offer. See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Sunbeam Lighting Co., 318 F.2d 661 (7th Cir. 1963). Third, we note that after pursuing their grievances on an individual basis for several months, petitioners asked their elected representative to proceed on a "group" basis, i.e., to represent all minority employees affected by the alleged discrimination. The Union declined to change its pending complaint to proceed on a "group" basis. At this point petitioners abandoned the pending grievance procedure which had been initiated on their behalf and engaged in concerted activity allegedly on behalf of all minority employees. We think these facts indicate that though the immediate adjustment board proceedings were disrupted, this disruption cannot wholly destroy the protection afforded these employees by section 7, especially in light of the express protection mandated by Title VII and the limited interference with section 9(a).

There is nothing in the record before us to indicate that the Union's decision to remedy the charges of discrimination by proceeding on an individual rather than a group or class basis was made in bad faith. The Union may well have thought it had chosen the most efficacious method to handle the charges, and it may have done so. Nonetheless, it might be that these charges could have been better handled on a group or class basis. Had the Union's decision to process only individual grievances been made to delay the ultimate eradication of discrimination, or been motivated by similar bad faith considerations, clearly it would have breached its duty of fair representation of all of its members. See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 73 S.Ct. 681, 97 L.Ed. 1048 (1953); Steele v. Louisville Nashville R.R., 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173 (1944); Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187 (1944). Under such circumstances a union's decision to proceed on an individual basis could not, in our view, prevent a minority from attempting to proceed by means of another alternative method. Yet, even where there might be no bad faith on the part of the union, we recognize that the method chosen by a union might not be the most efficacious or expedient. For example, the union might be vigorously processing individual grievances before an adjustment board, while it would be more efficient and thus preferable for it to be attempting to engage in collective bargaining negotiations with the employer for all minorities to eliminate all the discriminatory employment practices. In such a case, we do not think the method or means chosen by the union should preclude a minority group who has reasonable grounds for believing that the union is not proceeding against all discrimination from attempting to assert its claim of racial discrimination in a manner which it considers would be more successful. Otherwise, as Member Jenkins observed in dissent, a union "would [be] permit[ted] . . . to control the scope, direction, pace and degree of racial discrimination." We agree that the eradication of racial discrimination in employment cannot be subjected to such a restriction. Thus, the Labor Board should inquire, in cases such as this, whether the union was actually remedying the discrimination to the fullest extent possible, by the most expedient and efficacious means. Where the union's efforts fall short of this high standard, the minority group's concerted activities cannot lose its section 7 protection.

The Trial Examiner reasoned that orderly collective bargaining would be undermined by protecting this concerted activity because it would impose upon the Company "an unreasonable burden" of having to bargain with appellants while, at the same time, dealing with the Union representative in the grievance procedure. Certainly collective bargaining must be orderly in the sense that no stable, meaningful agreement can be reached where various factions are free to make conflicting demands upon an employer. The avoidance of such a state of affairs, as we have noted, was the prime motivation behind the exclusivity principle of section 9(a). We can see nothing in that principle, however, which indicates that it was intended to be used as a shield to protect an employer from the "burden" of having to deal with two groups on the same subject. We cannot agree that any inconvenience which the Company might experience in being required to bargain with the minority here while still participating in the grievance procedures justifies withdrawing section 7 protection from these concerted activities.

III

On remand the Board may consider the issue of whether the picketing of these employees, considering the language used, was so disloyal to their employer as to remove them from the protection of section 7. N.L.R.B. v. Local Union No. 1229 (Jefferson Standard), 346 U.S. 464, 74 S.Ct. 172, 98 L.Ed. 195 (1953). Neither the Board nor the Trial Examiner decided this issue, though the latter discussed it at considerable length. While we do not express any opinion on the merits of this issue, we note that in considering it on remand the Board should closely examine the facts to ensure that neither racial discrimination nor adversity toward these concerted activities motivated the Company in its decision to discharge the employees. As the Supreme Court observed in Jefferson Standard, supra:

The legal principle that insubordination, disobedience or disloyalty is adequate cause for discharge is plain enough. The difficulty arises in determining whether, in fact, the discharges are made because of such a separable cause or because of some other concerted activities engaged in for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection which may not be adequate cause for discharge.

346 U.S. at 475, 74 S.Ct. at 178. Such a factual determination is especially important here because any discharge which was racially motivated would be an unfair labor practice, United Packinghouse Workers Union v. N.L.R.B., 135 U.S.App.D.C. 111, 416 F.2d 1126, cert. denied, Farmer's Co-op Compress v. United Packinghouse etc., 396 U.S. 903, 90 S.Ct. 216, 24 L.Ed.2d 179 (1969); moreover any discharge due solely to the employer's objection against lawfully protesting his allegedly discriminatory employment practices would be unlawful. N.L.R.B. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd., 349 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1965).

For these reasons the decision and order of the Board are reversed and remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Judgment accordingly.

* * * * *

[I]t was my feeling certain acts had to take place in order that everybody at the Emporium would have an opportunity not only to have a job, but to advance into new positions (A. 137).

* * * * *

I specifically requested and pointed out that it is going to take a long time in some of these cases, but that they would not only be helping themselves, but other people involved in it, because we had very strong feelings on the question (A. 136-137). (Emphasis added.)