NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

236 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the ground that no proof of majority was offered him National
Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, Inc., supra. The principle,
as enunciated in the Remington Rand case, is as follows :
In the case at bar even though the respondent were in doubt as to the
•
Joint Board's authority, that doubt did not excuse it; for it is quite plain
that its position was not based upon any doubt, but upon its unwillingness to
treat with "outside" representatives of its employees ; * * 1 The greater
included the less, and having taken that position, it may not now say that
it could not know whether the Joint Board was properly accredited.
THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF FACT, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, ARE
CONCLUSIVE
Section 10 (e) of the act provides that the "findings of the Board,
as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive." The
binding effect of this provision has been recognized in a number of
cases, and it is now well settled that in determining the validity of
an order of the Board which is supported by evidence, the reviewing
court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Board."
Not only are the Board's findings of subsidiary facts binding on
the Court, but its conclusion, based upon such subsidiary facts, as
to the appropriate remedy necessary to alleviate the effects of the
illegal conduct of an employer will not be disturbed. In National
Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyh,ound Lines, supra, the
Supreme Court stated:
Section 10 (e) declares that the Board's findings of fact "if supported by
evidence, shall be conclusive." Whether the continued recognition of the
Employees Association by respondents would in itself be a continuing obstacle
to the exercise of the employees' right of self-organization and to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, is an inference of fact
to be drawn by the Board from the evidence reviewed in its subsidiary findings.
See Sivainve tE Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States, 300 U. S. 297.39
In conclusion, it will be seen from a. perusal of the Court decisions
referred to above, and from the decisions of the Board
considered in these cases by the Courts, that the purpose of the Board
in each case has been one of thoughtful regard for the effectuation of
the policies of the act, so that collective bargaining by freely chosen
representatives of the employees may be protected where efforts have
been made to destroy it. By this means conditions are corrected, in
conformity with the public policy enunciated by Congress, so that
collective bargaining may be permitted to exist and to function as a
means for the peaceful adjustment of disputes in the area of industrial
activity subject to the regulatory power of Congress under the
commerce clause.
Board has lost its jurisdiction to make any orders we are called upon to enforce, whether
in addition to or modification of the recommendations.
"We do not so hold to be the character of the recommendations of the trial examiner
The remedy of the statute, National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. A. 151 et seq., is
in the orders of the Board to cease and desist and take the designated affirmative _action.
The recommendations of the trial examiner are no more than recommendations to the
Board as to its action." 94 F. (2d) 671.
33 The principle, enunciated in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones if Laughlin
Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court and the various circuit
courts of appeals in more than a score of cases under the act.
3) It is clear also that the evidence upon which the Board's findings are based need not be
of the kind usually admitted in courts of law. The act, in seetion 10 (b), specifically declares :
"In any such proceeding the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity
shall not be controlling."
In National Labor .Relations Board V. Remington Rand, Inc., supra, the Circuit Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit interpreted, this Section to mean that hearsay evidence
is admissible in proceedings before the Board. See also Consolidated Edison Company V.
National Labor Relations Board, 95 F. (2d) 390 (C. C. A. 2d), oert. granted, 58 S. Ct.
1038, and National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash and Chemical Carp., 98 F.
(2d) 488 (C. C. A. 9th).