NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

IX. LITIGATION 233
in National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F.
(2d) 862 (C. C. A. 2d), cert. denied 58 S. Ct. 1046.3°
It is also clear that where a strike has been called for a reason
other than an unfair labor practice on the part of the employer the
Board may, if the employer thereafter during the strike violates the
Act with respect to the striking employees, require reinstatement of
the striking employees, though this necessitates the discharge of all
persons hired after the date of the unfair labor practice. Board
orders of this type have been upheld in a number of cases 33 as appropriate
remedies to effectuate the policies of the act.
WHERE AN EMPLOYER HAS DOMINATED OR INTERFERED WITH rut.
FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION THE
BOARD MAY, UNDER SECTION 10 (C), ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO
WITHDRAW RECOGNITION FROM SUCH ORGANIZATION, AND TO
DISESTABLISH IT AS A COTI.ECTIVE BARGAINING AGENCY
Section 8 (2) of the act prohibits an employer from dominating or
interfering with the "formation or administration of any labor organization"
or contributing "financial or other support to it." In order
to remedy the situation created by an employer's violation of this
Section, the Board has often found it necessary to order the employer
to withdraw recognition from the company-dominated organization
and to disestablish it as a bargaining agent. The propriety of this
type of remedial order is now firmly, established by court decisions.
In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania G-reyhound
Lines, 303 U. S. 261, and National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific
Greyhou nd Lines, 303 U. S. 272, the Supreme Court (reversing in
this respect decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals for the Third 3
and Ninth Circuits 33 respectively) upheld orders of the Board directing
the Greyhound companies to withdraw recognition from, and
disestablish, labor organizations which they had sponsored and dominated,
and which therefore constituted a bar to true collective
bargaining. After studying the provision of the order with reference
to the legislative history of the act the Court, in the Pennsylvania
Greyhound case, stated:
It is plain that the challenged provisions of the present order are of a kind
contemplated by Congress in the enactment of § 10 (c) and are within its
terms.
Since the decision of the Supreme Court in the Greyhound cases,
orders of the Board requiring disestablishment of company-domi-
See also 25ational Labor Relations Board v. Millfay Manufacturing Co., 97 F. (2d)
1009 (C. C. A. 2d) and National Labor Relations Board v. Star Publishing Co., 97 F. (2d)
465 (C. C. A. 9th). In the Remington Rand case, the Court in upholding the Board's
order directing reinstatement of the strikers, said :
"The act expressly preserves the right to strike, section 13, 29 U. S. C. A., § 163, and
that includes a strike for refusing to negotiate as well as any other. It is a remedy parallel
with recourse to the Labor Board: its use, when unsuccessful, but in a controversy
where the men are right, ought not therefore to be prejudicial to them. Moreover—and
this is conclusive—the remedy which the act provides expressly includes reinstatement
as a part of it. It is, of course, true that the consequences are harsh to those who have
taken the strikers' places ; • * • as between those who have used a lawful weapon
and those whose protection will limit its use, the second must yield ; and indeed, it is
probably true today that most men taking jobs so made vacant, realize from the outset
how tenuous is their hold."
"Black Diamond Steamship Corp. V. National Labor Relations Board, 94 F. (2d) 875
(C. C. A. 2d), cert. denied. 304 U. S. 579; Jeffery DeWitt Insulator Company v. National
Labor Relations Board, 91 F. (2d) 134 (C. C. A. 4th), cert. denied, 302W. S. 731:
National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Company, 94 F. (2d) 138 (C. C. A.
9th), cert. denied, 304 U. S. 575. In the Black Diamond case, the Court said :
"From the date of the respondent's first unfair labor practice, its ordinary right to
select its employees became vulnerable."
22 91 F. (2d) 178.
"91 F. (2d) 458.