1 - National Labor Relations Board

In junction Litigation 161
union, it was based upon allegations that the employer's recognition
of the union, on grounds a new unit of employees was an
accretion to an existing unit, was assistance in violation of the
Act, and the union's acceptance of recognition interference with
the employee's right to select their own representative.
1. Standards for Injunctive Relief
The standards under which a court will accord injunctive
relief under section 10(j) in advance of the Board's own resolution
of the issues continued to be 2 a matter of concern to the
courts in cases decided this year. In the Davis & Hemphill case 3
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's
grant of a temporary injunction under section 10(j) 4 based upon
that court's finding that there was reasonable cause to believe
that the employer had unlawfully refused to bargain with the
certified union. The employer had withdrawn recognition from
the union at a time when it did not have a reasonable basis for
a doubt of the union's majority status and had begun hiring
replacements for his employees striking in protest of his action.
The court of appeals, finding a close relationship between the
standards for grant of an injunction under section 10(j) and
that applicable to injunctions under section 10(e), held that,
as under 10(e), relief under 10(j) required not only a finding
of reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act had
occurred, but also a finding that injunctive relief was just and
proper because "under the circumstances the remedial purposes
of the Act would be frustrated unless temporary relief was
granted." In reference to the "reasonable cause" finding the court
noted that "the standard on review is the usual one applicable
to district court findings of fact: the finding will stand unless
clearly erroneous. We inquire only whether there has been a
sufficient showing by the Board to raise a substantial question
of a violation of the Act." On the matter of "just and proper"
relief, the court concluded that in view of the overriding importance
of protecting the bargaining process and relationship,
interim relief was required since the employer's coercive actions
were diminishing union support, and if continued would cause
its dissipation.
2 See Thirty-second Annual Report (1967), p. 176, for other decisions involving this issue.
Also Thirty-third Annual Report (1968), p. 165.
'Sacks v. Davis & Hemphill, 71 LRAM 2126 (C.A. 4).
'Sac/is V. Davis & Hemphill, 295 F.Supp. 142 (D.C.Md.)•