NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

•
VI. LITIGATION 87
B. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED
As in preceding years, the procedural and substantive principles
established in the increasing volume of litigation arising under the
Act have been so numerous that only the most important developments
in the law are discussed below.
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—SErTION 8 (1)
Relationship of section 8 (I) and other subsections defining unfair
labor practices.—It has always been the Board's view that section 8
(1)- embraces all of the unfair labor practices, some of which are separately
defined in the succeeding subsections of section 8, out of an
abundance of caution. This view of the relationship of the unfair
labor practices has been generally accepted by the courts with respect
to section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (4) , 8 but there has been some hesitation
in accepting the view that a similar relationship obtains between section
8 (1) and 8 (5). 9 In N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Co., the
Supreme Court resolved this doubt, sustaining the Board's contention
that a 'violation of section 8 (5) is also a violation of section 8 (1).1°
The Court characterized the 8 (1) violation found, as a "technical"
one, however, rejecting a Board order requiring the employer to cease
and desist from violating section 8 (1) generally. 11 The basis for this
view appears to be the fact, emphasized by the court, that the Board
had "made no finding, based either on the specific circumstances disclosed
by the record or on its own expert judgment of their relation to
the policy expressed in section 7, or as to any relationship or probable -
relationship of respondent's refusal to bargain and the other types of
unfair labor practices some of which are enumerated in section 8." 12
This apparent limitation upon the scope of the court's decision is of
great importance since the Board's experience shows that in general
the relationship of the various unfair labor practices is a very substantial
one. Several of the cases decided during the past year afford
interesting illustration of this fact. In H. J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B.,
the close relationship between section 8 (2) and section 8 (5) was
clearly brought out and the court expressly ruled that it was proper
for .the Board in determining the appropriate remedy for the 8 (2)
violation to take into consideration the employer's violation of section
8 (5) • 13 In International Association of Machinists v. N. L. R. B.,14
the relationship of section 8 (5) and 8 (1) was touched upon. There
the employer had refused to bargain with the majority representative
N. L. R. B. V. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. (2d) 862.869 (C. C. X. 2) : N. L. R. B. V.
Lund, 103 F. (2d) 815, 817-818 (C. C. A. 8) ; N. L. R. B. V. Swift & Co., 116 F. (2d) 143,
145, 146 (C. C. A. 8) ; N. L. R. B. v. Willard. Ine., 98 F. (2d) 244 (C. A.—D. a).
° Sustaining the Board, among others : Art Metal Construction Co. V. N. L. R. B., 110 F.
(2d) 148 (C. C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B. V. Highland Park Mfg. Co., 110 F. (2d) 632 (C. C. A. 4) :
Pueblo Gas & Fuel Co. v. N. L. R. B., 118 F. (2d) 304 (C. C. A. 10) ; Contra: Remington
Rand case, supra, fi. 8, overruled by the Art Metal case, supra; N. L. R. B. V. Express
Publishing Co., 111 F. (2d1 588. reversed, 312 U. S. 426.
10 312 U. S. 426, 432, 433, 435.
Idem, at 433. See also infra, under "ORDERS."
Idem. at 434-435.
13 311 U. S. 514, 522. It is interesting to note that in the same case, the Circuit Court
had observed that "Petitioner's refusal to execute a written agreement at the request of
the Union may well have left the. employees * * with a sense of insecurity," 110
F. (2d) 843, 849 (C. C. A. 6). The deliberate creation of such a sense of insecurity
he more than
may
a technical violation of sec. 8 (1).
14 311 U. S. 72.