ion against the damage caused by secondary boycotts was held in these decisions to be consonant with the general objectives Congress sought to attain.


19
In the first of these decisions the court carefully delineated the line of demarcation Congress intended to draw between matters affecting railroads which were withheld from Board jurisdiction and matters affecting railroads which were not so withheld.  The purpose of section 2(2) and (3) in defining 'employers' to exclude persons subject to the Railway Labor Act was to leave railroad employer-employee matters exclusively to the administration of the latter act.  It was not intended thereby to deny Board relief under section 8(b)(4)(A) when railroads occupying the position of neutral third parties are adversely affected by activities designed to aid a nonrailroad union in a primary labor dispute with an independent employer.


20
In two federal district court decisions and in one state court case the same result has been reached on generally parallel reasoning.8 Two decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, while dealing with different factual patterns, contain statements which appear to support the view that Congress did not intend to deny railroads protection against what for any other industry would be secondary boycotts.9


21
There has not been presented in the instant case any argument of substance in favor of the Board's position which has not already been discussed at length in one or more of the court decisions referred to above.10 It will accordingly serve no useful purpose to here restate these same reasons why the Board's petition must be rejected.  It is sufficient to state that we concur in the views expressed in the cited judicial decisions.11


22
The order of the Board dismissing the complaint is set aside and the case is remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  In view of the lapse of time since these proceedings were instituted, it is ordered that the mandate issue forthwith.



1
 The reference