NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

234 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nated unions have been sustained by the circuit courts in a number
of cases."
NOTICE TO THE COMPANY-DOMINATED UNION NEED NOT BE GIVEN
FOR THE BOARD TO ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO DISESTABLISH SUCH
UNION AS A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT
The principal ground upon which the circuit courts in the Greyhound
cases, supra, refused to enforce the Board's orders affecting
the dominated organizations was the failure of the Board to give
notice and hearing to the company-dominated unions. The principle
is now well established, however, that since the orders of the
Board run against the employer found to have violated the statute
and not against the company-dominated union itself, only the employer
is required to be given notice and hearing of proceedings of
the character involved in cases of company-dominated unions. In
National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines,
supra, the Court held :
As the order did not run against the Association it is not entitled to notice
and hearing. Its presence was not necessary in order to enable the Board to
determine whether respondents had violated the statute or to make an appropriate
order against them. See General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S.
R. Co., 260 U. S. 261, 285-286."
IMPROPER CONDUCT BY A UNION GRANTS NO IMMUNITY TO AN
EMPLOYER TO VIOLATE THE ACT
The principle is well established by judicial decisions that improper
conduct on the part of a union does not grant a license to an employer
to engage in unfair labor practices prohibited by the act. National
Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, Inc., supra. The corrolary
is also clear that improper conduct by the union cannot deprive
the Board of its power to pre-4nt violations of the statute. National
Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Co., supra. With respect
to the latter point the Court, in the Carlisle Lumber case, said :
Respondent contends that the proceeding before us is an equitable proceeding ;
that the union's picketing resulted in violence, as the Board found, which was
a violation of the laws of Washington, and therefore enforcement should be
34 National Labor Relations Board V. J. Freezer cf Son, 95 F. (2d) 840 (C. C. A. 4thl
National Labor Relations Board v. Wallace Mfg. Co., 95 Ir. (2d) 818 (C. C. A. 4th
National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash and Chemical Corp., 98 F. (2d) 4 8
(C. C. A. 9th).
In Consolidated Edison - Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 95 F. (2d) 390
(C. C. A. 2d), cert. granted, 58 S. Ct. 1038, the Court sustained the power of the Board to
order an employer to cease and desist from giving effect to contracts, entered into in violation
of Section 8 (1) of the act, with a labor organization which the employer had
actively aided to the detriment of a rival organization. It was held that since the Board's
conclusion, that it was necessary to invalidate the contracts "in order to establish conditions
for the exercise of an unfettered choice of representatives" by the employees, was
not unwarranted, the order was proper. This case is now pending in the Supreme Court.
as National Labor Relations Board v. J. Freezer d Son, 95 F. (2d) 840 (C. C. A. 4th)
National Labor Relations Board v. Wallace Mfg. Co., 95 F. (2d) 818 (C. C. A. 4th). See
also Consolidated Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board, supra, where the
Court held that since an order directing an employer to cease giving effect to contracts
entered into with a labor organization in violation of Section 8 (1) ran only against the
employer, such labor organization was not a necessary party to the proceeding.
In National Labor Relations Board v. Star Publishing Co., supra, the Court affirmed the
right of the Board to deny intervention in a proceeding before it to workers who had been
hired to replace the employees against whom the employer had discriminated, as follows :
"Respondent argues that the proposed intervenors had such an interest in the controversy
that to deny their petition was an abuse of discretion. We think the Board rightfully
held that the question before it was whether respondent had engaged in an unfair
labor practice as charged. Whether respondent had so engaged was a question which, by
the provisions of the Act, was of no concern, we think, to the proposed intervenors. It
was not they who were discriminated against."