1943 - National Labor Relations Board

Enforcement Litigation 65than to strikes as a means of combating the unfair labor practices oftheir employer, an employee who went on strike as the result of anunfair labor practice should be given back pay from the date of thediscriminatory refusal by the employer to reinstate him upon hisapplication to return to work, even though such application was madeduring the i)rogress of the strike.In .Butler Bros. v. National Labor Relations Board, 134 F. (2d) 981(C. C. A. 7), cert. denied November 22, 1943, building maintenanceemployees, such as janitors, watchmen, and elevator service operators,who performed maintenance services for the owner of a loft buildingwith tenants producing goods for interstate commerce, were heldto fall within the protection of the Act. The owner of the buildingand the contractor for the maintenance operations were held to bejoint employers under the Act. The application of the "commerce"power to such employees had been sustained earlier by the courts intwo cases involving the Fair Labor Standards Act, A. B. KirschbaumCo. v. Walling, 316 U. S. 517; Fleming v. Arsenal Building Corp.,125 F. (2d) 278 (C. C. A. 2).In National Labor Relations Board v. The J. L. Hudson Co., 135 F.(2d) 380 (C. C. A. 6), cert. denied October 11, 1943, the Court sustainedthe Board's jurisdiction over a retail department store whichimported most of its merchandise from sources outside the State inwhich it is located, and exported a small percentage of its sales topoints outside the State.In National Labor Relations Board v. Boswell Co. May 24, 1943(C. C. A. 9), the Court sustained the Board's jurisdiction over anemployer who was not engaged in operations affecting interstatecommerce but whose unfair labor practices, directed against his ownemployees, affected a labor dispute involving an employer engagedin interstate commerce. The Court sustained the Board's findingthat an employer had committed unfair labor practices by discharginga woman because of his belief that she was in sympathy with employeeson strike at a nearby plant, a belief resulting from the factthat the woman's daughter had been seen on a picket line.In National Labor Relations Board v. Blount, 131 F. (2d) 585(C. C. A. 8), cert. denied 318 U. S. 791, the Court upheld the Board'sfinding that tiff miners, who the employer claimed were "independentcontractors," were "employees" within the meaning of the Act. InHearst Publications v. N. L. R. B. June 12, 1943 (C. C. A. 9), cert.granted October 25, 1943, the Court set aside a finding of theBoard that certain newsboys were "employees" within the meaningof the Act.In National Labor Relations Board v. J. I. Case Co., 134 F. (2d) 70(C. C. A. 7), cert. granted June 21, 1943, the Court sustained theBoard's finding that individual contracts with employees, valid whenentered into, were not a bar during their term to collective bargainingwith a subsequently designated statutory representative. In NationalLabor Relations Board v. Medo Photo Supply Co., 135 F. (2d) 279