TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

212 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
The court of appeals, in affirming the district court's dismissal
of the complaint,' rejected these contentions According to the court,
Congress' adoption of a national labor policy was intended to supersede
all local policies, State or tribal, where the employer's operations
affect interstate commerce Therefore, in determining that the Act
"clearly applie [d] to the [employer] because it is engaged in the
production of goods for interstate commerce," the court concluded that
the micumstance that its plant was located on the Navajo reservation
could not remove it or its employees from the coverage of the Act 5
Thus, as the court determined, " [t]he Board regulates labor disputes
affecting interstate commerce, and the Act authorizes it to do so
without stating any exception which would preclude its acting with
respect to a plant located within an Indian reservation, or one
employing Indians."
b Proprietary Hospital
In Fitch Sanztarzum,7 plaintiff, a proprietary hospital, contended
that the Board's refusal to entertain a representation petition filed by
it under section 9(c) (1) (B) of the act 8 constituted a violation of the
proviso to section 14(c) (1) of the act which states that " . the
Board shall not decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute
over which it would assert jurisdiction under the standards prevailing
upon August 1, 1959" In support of this contention, plaintiff pointed
to sevei al cases antedating August 1, 1959, in which the Board had
assumed jurisdiction over proceedings involving proprietary hospitals
Without deciding whether those cases were distinguishable, the
court of appeals hold that the proviso to section 14 contemplated "a
standard more definitely formulated than one said to arise by the
assumption of jurisdiction m a few cases "9 Therefore, having determined
that the Board had no jurisdictional standard prior to August
1, 1959, pursuant to which it would have asserted jurisdiction over
proprietary hospitals like Fitch, the court concluded that section
14(c) (1) authorized, lathe]. than prohibited, the declination of juris-
The Navajo Tribe v NLRB, 46 LRRDI 2130 (D C D C )
5 288 F 2d at 164
•Id at 165
'Leedom v Fitch Sanitarium, 294 F 2d 251 (C A DC)
• In refusing to entertain this petition, the Board adhered to its decision in Fiat bush
General Hospital, 126 NLRB 144, where it had established a policy of not asserting jurisdiction
over proceedings involving proprietary hospitals as a class This policy was based
upon the authority conferred by sec 14(c) (1) of the act, a provision added by the 1959
amendments which empowers the Board to "decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor
dispute involving any class or category of employers where, in the opinion of the Board,
the effect of such labor dispute on commerce is not sufficiently substantial to warrant the
exercise of its jurisdiction," provided that the Board may not decline "to assert jurisdiction
over any labor dispute over which it would assert jurisdiction under the standards prevailing
upon August 1, 1959"
• 294F 2d at 254