NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VIII. JURISDICTION 219
fiscal year. The jurisdictional questions presented in cases coming
before the. Courts for enforcement of Board orders are, for the most
part, readily divisible into three categories; first, those involving concerns
which are themselves directly engaged in intastate commerce ;
second, those involving concerns which both receive and transmit materials
hi interstate commerce ; 12 and third, those involving concerns
which obtain all or practically all of their raw materials in the State
of manufacture but ship a substantial proportion of their finished
products to points in other States. 13 The jurisdictional problem in
this last group of cases is similar to that dealt with in the Santa Cruz
case, where all of the products to be packed were obtained within the
state of packing but a substantial proportion of the finished products
were shipped to other states, 14 and in mining.15
In addition to the above situations, the act was held applicable to
the employees of a daily newspaper in National Labor Relations
Board v. Star Publishing Co., 97 F. (2d) 465 (C. C. A. 9th).
Consolidated Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board,
95 F. (2d) 390 (C. C. A. 2d), cert. granted, 58 S. Ct. 1038, is perhaps
the best illustration of the principle that the effect upon interstate
commerce of a labor dispute, if one should occur, in a particular
industrial enterprise, and not the percentage of materials received or
transmitted in interstate commerce, is the test by which Board jurisdiction
is determined. In that case, the Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit sustained the jurisdiction of the Board with
respect to New York public utility companies which confined all of
their operations within the State of New York, made no shipments
into interstate commerce, and supplied no light or energy beyond the
State's boundaries. The companies did, however, supply electric
energy to three interstate railroads for the lighting and operation of
U Black Diamond Steamship Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 94 F. (2d)
18 (C. C. A. 2d), cert. denied 304 U. S. 579 (steamship company engaged in interstate
and foreign commerce) ; Appalachian Electric Power Company v. National Labor Relations
Board, 93 F. (2d) 985 (C. C. A. 4th) (public utility transmitting electric power across
State lines) ; National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Oil d Gas Cp., 91 F. (2d) sos
(C. C. A. 5th) (oil company transporting oil and gas in two States).
12 National Labor Relations Board V. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. (2d) 862 (C. C. A.
26), cert. denied, 304 U. S. 576; rehearing denied 304 U. S. 590 (office equipment manufacturer
with plants all over the world) ; Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Co. v. National Labor
Relations Board, 91 F. (26) 134 (C. C. A. 4th), cert. denied, 302 U. S. 731 (insulator
manufacturer) ; National Labor Relations Board v. J. Freezer cE Son, 95 F. (2d) 840
(C. C. A. 4th) (shirt manufacturer) ; Memphis Furniture Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations
Bpard, 96 F. (2d) 1018 (C. C. A. 6th). cert. denied October 10, 1938 (furniture
manufacturer) ; National Labor Relations Board v. Sands Mfg. Co., 96 F. (2d) 721 (C. C.
A. 6th), cert. granted October 10, 1938, 59 S. Ct. 91 (manufacturer of water heaters)
National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, Inc., 97 F. (2d) 13 (C. C. A. 6th)
(automobile accessory manufacturer) ; National Labor Relations Board V. Columbian
Enameling d Stamping Co., 96 F. (2d) 948 (C. C. A. 7th), cert. granted October 10,
1938, 59 S. Ct. 86 (enameling manufacturer). Although this report does not extend
beyond the end of the fiscal year, we have noted, for the convenience of Congress, the
cases in which certiorari was granted or denied by the Supreme Court prior to November
1, 1938. Sands Mfg. Co. and Co/umbian Enameling if Stamping are cases in which the
Jurisdiction of the Board was upheld although Board orders were set aside (see ch. IX,
infra). Jurisdictional issues were not involved in the applications for certiorari.
13 National Labor Relations Board V. Lion Shoe Co., 97 F. (2d) 448 (C. C. A. 1st) (shoe
manufacturer) ; Mooresville Cotton Mills v. National Labor Relations Board, 94 F. (2d)
61 (C. C. A. 4th) (towel manufacturer) ; National Labor Relations Board v. Wallace
fg. Co., 95 F. (2d) 818 (C. C. A. 4th) (textile manufacturer) : National Labor Relations
Board v. Kentucky Firebrick Company, 99 F. (2d) 89 (C. C. A. 6th), (firebrick refractory)
National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Co., 94 F. (26) 138 (C. C. A. 9th),
cert. denied 304 U. S. 575 (lumber company) ; National Labor Relations Board v. American
Potash and Chemical Corp., 98 F. (26) 483 (C. C. A. 9th) (potash and borax manufacturer).
Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 303 U. S. 453.
15 Clover Fork Coal Co. V. National Labor Relations Board, 97 F. (26) 331 (C. C. A.
60). This case, as well as the Santa Cruz case, supra, involved the distinction between
the National Labor Relations Act, as a regulation of commerce, and the statute involved
In the case of Carter v. Carter, 298 U. S. 238, in which the regulation of coal mining as
attempted in the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935 was held invalid.
108817-38-15