NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VI. LITIGATION 101
Other procedural rulings.—Important rulings were handed down
on other procedural points. It was held that Board orders could be
reviewed by the courts only on the basis of the transcript certified by
the Board under Section 10 (e) of the Act, not on purported narrative
statements of the testimony. 58 Three Circuit Courts refused to take
jurisdiction of employers' petitions to review Board orders where it
appeared that each court would only be able to hear part of cases
which had been consolidated for purposes of hearing and order by
the Board, and where the cases could be passed on in their entirety
by a court of equal dignity to which the Board had petitioned for
enforcement." The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that it had
power to enter a supplemental decree when the original decree had
been entered at the same term of court,8° and the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals held that it could modify its decree enforcing a Board's
cease and desist order after the denial of a petition for certiorari
seeking to raise the same issue, since such an order was in the nature
of a continuing injunction.81
C. PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT DECREES ENFORCING
BOARD ORDERS
At the beginning of the fiscal year, there were pending before the
courts 4 petitions to adjudge respondents in contempt; 15 new petitions
were filed during the year and 6 were pending at the close of
the year. Thirteen cases have been finally disposed of. Of the 13
closed during the year, 6 were closed after court orders adjudging
respondents in contempt and 7 were settled after proceedings had been
filed. Brief summaries of the court decisions of the year adjudging
respondents in contempt, together with 3 other important decisions
involving problems of contempt proceedings are listed below :
Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited, et al. v. N. L. R. B.,
120 F. (2d) 126 (C. C. A. 1). A Board motion that subpoenas ad
testificandum and dues tecuim, be issued for pretrial discovery in a contempt
proceeding pending before the Court was denied as a matter
of discretion because of the nearness of the hearing. The Court, however,
asserted its power to issue such subpoenas under its statutory
power to issue writs necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction.
N. L. R. B. v. Sitvino Giannasca, d. b. a. Imperial Reed and Fibre
Company, 119 F. (2d) 756 (C. C. A. 2). Employer held in contempt
for violating a consent decree of the Court enforcing 23 N. L. R. B. No.
45 which required reinstatement of strikers, dismissing strikebreakers
if necessary. The Court held that the employer discriminated
against the returning strikers as to their wages, warranting the
imposition of a penalty on the employer for contempt. The Court
held that retention of strikebreakers after striking employees were
reinstated constituted a violation of the decree where certain employees
63 N. L. R. B. v. Foote Bros. Gear d Machine Corp., 311 U. S. 620; N. L. R. B. V. Swift
cf Co., 116 F. (2d) 143, 146 (C. C. A. 9).
Standard Oil Co. v. N. L. R. B., 114 F. (2d) 743, 744 (C. C. A. 8) ; Stanolind Oil d
Gas Co. v. N. L. R. B., 116 F. (2d) 274, 275 (C. C. A. 5) ;
g , ).
Texas Co. v. N. L. R. B., decided
Se tember 28 1940 C. C. A. 7 certiorari denied 311 U. S. 712.
Republic Steel Corp. v. A. L. R. B., 114 F. (2d) 820 (C. C. A. 3).
(a McCluay-Norris Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 119 F. (24) 1009 (C. C. A. 7).