NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

IX. LITIGATION 227
economic pressure on the part of the Brotherhood would have subjected
it to great hardship if it had refused to do so. Enforcement
of the Boards order, requiring the company to reinstate to jobs in the
circulation department the members of the Guild, was granted.
National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash. and Chemical
Corp., 98 F. (2d) 488, was concerned with Board fmdings that the
company had committed violations of section 8 (1), (2), and (3) of
the act. The Board's findings were sustained in full, and enforcement
of the order, including reinstatement with back pay of the
wrongfully discharged employees and disestablishment of the company-dominated
union, was granted.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In National Labor Relations Board v. Willard, Inc., 98 F. (2d) 244,
the Court sustained findings of the Board that the Willard Hotel,
Washington, D. C., had discharged two employees because of their
union activities. Enforcement of the Board's order, requiring reinstatement
of the two employees with back pay, was granted.
C. MISCELLANEOUS COURT PROCEEDINGS
In addition to the injunction suits against the Board and the cases
in the circuit courts of appeals for enforcement and review of Board
orders, elsewhere discussed in this chapter, there has been, during the
present fiscal year, a considerable amount of miscellaneous litigation
mvolving the operations of the Board under the act.
In five cases 15 during the year efforts were made to review or stay
action taken by the Board in representation cases arising under section
9 (c) of the act. In each of these cases, brought respectively in the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh
Circuits, and in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the
Board's contention that the Court was without jurisdiction to enjoin
the hearings and investigations of the Board was sustained.
In six cases,i° where petitions to review orders of the Board were
appropriately filed in accordance with section 10 (f) of the act, stays
of the Board orders pending review have been requested and, after
opposition, denied.
In the Matter of Baldwin Locomotive Works (E. D. Pa.), C. C. H.
Labor Law Service, par. 18107, the Board petitioned the Court for
leave to issue a complaint directed to a company operating under the
supervision of the Court pursuant to section 77 (b) of the bankruptcy
law. The petition was denied because the bankruptcy proceedings
were soon to be terminated.
United Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Board, 96 F. (2d) 875
(C. C. A. 3d) ; Unlicensed Employees Collective Bargaining Agency of the Marine Department
of Sabine Transportation Company of Dover, Delaware, Inc. et al. V. National Labor
Relations Board (C. C. A. 5th), decided November 12, 1937; Combustion Engineering
Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 95 F. (2d) 996 (C. C. A. 6th) ; New
York Handkerchief Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 97 F. (2d) 1010 (C. C.
A. 7th) ; Commercial Telegraphers Union v. J. Warren Madden et al. (C. A.—D. C.),
decided November 18, 1937, stay also denied by Supreme Court, C. C. H. Labor Law
Service, par. 14108.
16 Consolidated Edison Co. et al v. National Labor Relations Board (C. C. A. 2d);
Regal Shirt Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (C. C. A. 3d) ; TVhiterock Quarries,
Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (C. C. A. 3d) ; McNeeley it Price Co. V. National
Labor Relations Board (C. C. A. 3d) ; National Electric Products Corp. et at v. National
Labor Relations Board (C. C. A. 3d) ; Swift d Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
(C. C. A. 10th).