NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VIII. JURISDICTION
In section 10 of the act Congress entrusted the Board with jurisdiction
"to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice
(listed in sec. 8) affecting commerce." 1 Issues before the Courts
involving the jurisdiction of the Board have been of two separate types :
first, those involving the right of the Board to determine in the first
instance whether a controversy before it is one "affecting commerce,"
and second, those relating to the question whether the Board in issuing
an order to prevent an unfair labor practice has correctly found, that
such unfair labor practice is one "affecting commerce." We will take
up in order the cases bearing upon these issues.
A. THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD TO DETERMINE
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WHETHER AN ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE IS ONE AFFECTING COMMERCE
On January 5, 1938, the Supreme Court in Myers et al v. Bethlehem
/ Shipbuilding Corporation, 303 U. S. 41, and in New pbrt News Shipbuilding
& Dry Dock Co. v. Schauftler et al, 303 U. S. 54, sustained the
position of the Board, maintained from the time of its creation, that
the authority conferred upon it by the act of determining whether an
employer had engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce,
was exclusive, subject to subsequent judicial review after Board decision
by the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States.
In two unanimous opinions in the above cases the Court held that a
/ Federal district court is without jurisdiction to enjoin the Board from
holding a hearing upon a complaint filed by it against an employer
alleged to be engaged in unfair labor practices prohibited by the act.
In the Myers case, the Court pointed out:
The District Court is without jurisdiction to enjoin hearings because the power
"to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice affecting commerce"
has been vested by Congress in the Board and the Circuit Court of Appeals,
and Congress has declared : "This power shall be exclusive, and shall not
be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may
be established by agreement, code, law, or otherwise." The grant of that exclusive
power is constitutional, because the act provided for appropriate procedure
before the Board and in the review by the Circuit Court of Appeals an adequate
opportunity to secure judicial protection against possible illegal action on the part
of the Board.' * *
The corporation contends that, since it denies that interstate or foreign commerce
is involved and claims that a hearing would subject it to irreparable damage,
rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution will be denied unless it be held
that the District Court has 'jurisdiction to enjoin the holding of a hearing by the
Board. So to hold would, as the Government insists, in effect substitute the
District Court for the Board as the tribunal to , hear and determine what Con-
1 The term "commerce" is defined in sec. 2 (6) of the act to include trade, traffic, com.
merce, transportation, or communication among the several States and foreign countries,
and in the District of Columbia and the Territories. The term "affecting commerce" is
defined to mean "in commerce or burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of
commerce, or having led or tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing
commerce or the free flow of commerce" (sec. 2 (7)).
303 U. S. 41, at 48.
216