NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

220 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their passenger and freight terminals and for the movement of interstate
trains, to the Pennsylvania Railroad for the operation of
switches in its tunnel under the Hudson River, and to numerous other
consumers engaged in interstate and foreign commerce, including telegraph,
telephone, and radio companies. The Court pointed out that,
although only a small percentage of their total business was done
with such interstate or foreign enterprises, the effect upon interstate
commerce of a labor dispute disrupting service would be "catastrophic,"
and accordingly ruled that the Board had properly assumed
jurisdiction. It is true that in this case the Board proved that the
companies purchased large supplies of materials in interstate commerce,
but the Court did not ground its decision upon this aspect of
the case.
The above decisions leave no doubt that neither the character of
the enterprise involved nor its size, nor the number of men employed,
nor the nature of the commodities produced or service rendered, is a
controlling factor in determining whether the act may be constitutionally
applied in any given situation. The test, as laid down in the
Jones & Laughlin case and reaffirmed in the Santa Cruz case, is
whether stoppage of operations by industrial strife would result in
substantial interruption to or burden upon interstate or foreign commerce.
Where such interruption would occur, unfair labor practices
on the part of employers, shown by long experience to be "prolific
causes of strife," have a close and intimate relation to such commerce
and are subject to Federal regulation under the act.
The Board has been careful to exercise its authority only within
constitutional limits This is best exemplified by the fact that in no
ease during the present fiscal year has an order of the Board been set
aside for lack of jurisdiction.