NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
224 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF <strong>NATIONAL</strong> <strong>LABOR</strong> <strong>RELATIONS</strong> <strong>BOARD</strong><br />
In National Labor Relations Board v. Millfay Manufacturing Company,<br />
97 F. (2d) 1009, the Court granted the Board's request for<br />
enforcement of its order directing the company to cease violating<br />
section 8 (1), (2), and (5) of the act, and to reinstate its employees<br />
who had gone on strike as a result of the company's unfair labor<br />
practices.<br />
FOURTH CIRCUIT<br />
Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Co. v. National Labor Relations Board,1'<br />
91 F. (2d) 134, cert. denied ,.302 U. S. 731, involved the validity of an<br />
order of the Board directing the company to reinstate strikers who<br />
had gone on strike prior to the effective date of the act, and to bargain<br />
collectively with the representatives of its employees. The Court<br />
sustained the Board's finding that the company had, subsequent to<br />
July 5, 1935, refused to bargain collectively with the union at a time<br />
when the union was the representative of a majority of the company's<br />
employees. Enforcement of the Board's order was granted.<br />
In Appalachian Electric Power Co. v. National Labor Relations<br />
Board, 93 F. (2d) 985, the Court set aside, for lack of evidence<br />
'<br />
an<br />
order of the Board based upon a finding that the company had discriminated<br />
in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of three<br />
individuals, but sustained the Board's jurisdiction.<br />
In Mooresville Cotton Mills v. National Labor Relations Board,<br />
94 F. (2d) 61, the Court sustained the finding of the Board that the<br />
company had violated section 8 (3) by refusing to reinstate eight of<br />
its employees following a strike. The Court refused to enforce, however,<br />
a provision in the Board's order directing reinstatement of four<br />
of the eight employees, on the ground that such employees had obtained<br />
regular and substantially equivalent employment elsewhere<br />
and were, therefore, no longer employees of the company within the<br />
meaning of section 2 (3) of the act. 12 Subsequently, the case was<br />
remanded to the Board for further hearing on this question.<br />
In National Labor Relations Board v. J. Freezer & Son, 95 F. (2d)<br />
840, the Court sustained findings of the Board that the company had<br />
discriminatorily discharged three employees and had dominated and<br />
interfered with the formation and administration of a labor organization.<br />
The Court granted the Board's request for enforcement of its<br />
order requiring the company to reinstate with back pay the wrongfully<br />
discharged employees and to disestablish the company-dominated<br />
union.<br />
National Labor Relations Board v. Wallace Manufacturing Co.,<br />
Inc.<br />
'<br />
95 F. (2d) 818, involved the validity of findings of the Board<br />
that the company had violated section 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the act.<br />
The Board's findings were sustained, and enforcement of its order,<br />
including reinstatement with back pay of a wrongfully discharged<br />
employee and disestablishment of a company-dominated union, was<br />
granted.<br />
In Standard Lime & Stone Co. v. National Labor Relations Board,<br />
97 F. (2d) 531, the Court sustained the Board's contention that employees<br />
who were on strike on July 5, 1935, were employees of the<br />
11 This case was discussed in the Second Annual Report, p. 34.<br />
32 The Court held, however, that the Board could order the company to pay such workers<br />
back pay for the period between the refusal to reinstate them and the date of their acquisition<br />
of substantially equivalent employment.