NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

222 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
controversy before the Court for its consideration.° We will briefly
summarize the cases decided during the present fiscal year, which
arose as a result of the filing of either type of petition. The principles
established by the decisions in these cases will be more fully considered
in section D, infra.
Four cases involving orders of the Board were decided by the
Supreme Court during the present fiscal year. In each case, enforcement
of the Board's order was granted in full. One of the cases,
,Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board,
303 U. S. 453, involved primarily, when it reached the Supreme Court,
the question of jurisdiction and is considered at length in Chapter
VIII
'
supra. In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania
Greyhound Lines, 303 U. S. 261, and National Labor Relations Board
v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 303 U. S. 272, the Court had before it for
consideration decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals for the Third 7
and Ninth 8 Circuits, respectively, sustaining findings of the Board
that the employer had violated section 8 (2) of the act by dominating
and interfering with the formation and administration of a labor organization
and by contributing financial and other support to it, but
refusing to enforce a provision of the order requiring disestablishment
of the company-dominated union as a collective bargaining representative.
The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the circuit
courts and sustained the orders of the Board requiring such clisestablishment
of unions found to be under employer control.
National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co.,
304 U. S. 333, involved primarily the right of the Board to direct
reinstatement of striking employees. The employees of the San Francisco
office of the Mackay Co. had gone on strike, but not because of
unfair labor practices condemned by the act. During the strike the
company had engaged other workers and, as a result, when the strike
was called off, work was not available for all of the strikers. In reinstating
the strikers to the available jobs
'
hov,ever, the company
discriminated against certain union men. The Court reversed the
decision of the circuit court 9 and granted enforcement of the Board's
order requiring reinstatement with back pay of the employees disorder
was granted, including reinstatement of a large number of
employees who had gone on strike because of the employer's unfair
labor practices.
Twenty-seven cases were decided by the various circuit courts of
appeals during the present fiscal year involving petitions to enforce
or set aside orders of the Board. Two of the cases 2 National Labor
Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, and Nat2.onal Labor Relations
Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co.,'were subsequently reversed
by the Supreme Court and have been considered above. In
another, Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations
Board, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Board. Orders
of the Board were sustained in full in 16 of the other 24 cases, and
in part, in 2 cases. In 6 cases, orders of the Board were set aside.
We will take up by circuits these decisions of the circuit courts.
6 Whenever an employer against whom an order has been issued files a petition for review
of such order, the Board files, with its answer, a request for enforcement of the order.
91 F. (2d) 178.
891 F. (2d) 458.
892 F. (2d) 761.