NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

III. PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD 17
in the prosecution of the investigation, in a proceeding in which no
specific complaint had been formulated informing the respondent of
the nature of the Government's contentions. The Board, notwithstanding
the Morgan case, considered its previous practice and procedure
valid and in no way lacking in due process. 7 It made the
change so as always to have' servedupon the parties either an intermediate
report or proposed findings issued by the Board as a desirable
improvement. It was thought that the determination of the
merits of controversies before the Board might thus be expedited and
the purposes of the act more effectually carried out.
The Board's faith in the propriety of its previous procedure was
confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court in iVational Labor
Relations Board v. Mackay Radio d: Telegraph Company (304 U. S.
333), decided May 15, 1938, a case in which no intermediate report
had been made and no proposed findings issued. The Court stated:
The respondent now asserts that the failure of the Board to follow its usual
practice of the submission of a tentative report by the trial examiner and a
hearing on exceptions to that report deprived the respondent of opportunity to
call to the Board's attention the alleged fatal variance between the allegations
of the complaint and the Board's findings. What we have saia sufficiently
indicates that the issues and contentions of the parties were clearly defined,
and as no other detriment or disadvantage is claimed to have ensued from the
Board's procedure the matter is not one calling for a reversal of the order. The
fifth amendment guarantees no particular form of procedure ; it protects substantial
rights. Compare Morgan, v. United States (298 U. S. 468, 478). The
contention that the respondent was denied a full and adequate hearing must be
rejected.8
Specific complaints clearly stating the issues are served upon the respondent in all
cases arising under sec. 10 of the act. Furthermore, the regional attorneys who prosecute
complaints under the act play no part in the decision of the cases.
B A similar conclusion was arrived at by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in Consolidated Edison Co. V. National Labor Relations Board, 95 F. (2d) 390,
cert. granted, 58 S. Ct. 1038, in which the company contended that it had been deprived
of due process of law by the elimination of an intermediate report. In no decided case
under the act has an order of the Board been set aside because of procedural defects.
In addition to the Mackay and Consolidated Edison cases. the Board's procedure was upheld
In National Labor Relations Board v. Bites Coleman Lumber Company, 98 F. (2d) 10
(C. C. A. 9th) and in National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash and Chemical
Corporation, 98 F. (2d) 488 (C. C. A. 9th) during the present fiscal year.