J. - National Labor Relations Board

VII. PIIINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 107the acts of sabotage had been expressly condoned by the employer. TheBoard stated that it would not, under the circumstances of the case,"adopt * * * a harsher criterion" than had been adopted by therespondent. The Board, however, did not order the reinstatementof employees who had committed acts of sabotage which were not condonedby the respondent. The Board, in this case, rejected the respondent'sargument that the violence engaged in by some strikers should beattributed to all strikers and all strikers denied reinstatement andstated :Acts which some strikers may have committed during a strike do not disqualifythe other strikers from reinstatement. The Norris-LaGuardia Actprovides that no member of an organization participating in a labor dispute shallbe held responsible in any court of the United States for the unlawful acts ofindividual members except upon clear proof of actual participation in, or actualauthorization of such acts, or of ratification of such acts, after actual knowledgethereof. We are of the opinion that the Board should be guided by this policy.In Matter of Reed & Prince Manufacturing Company and Steel'Workers Organizing Committee of the C. I. 0.," the Board requiredthe reinstatement of unfair labor practice strikers, stating :We do not feel that the fact that by Massachusetts law a strike to enforcea demand for an arbitration clause is tortious should alter the situation in thisrespect. The situation is very different from that in the case of the NationalLabor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation° in which theCourt held that an employer could properly discharge employees because theyhave seized and held the plant of the employer and have participated in violenceand destruction of property. We do not think that the holding of the SupremeCourt in that case was intended to apply to a situation such as this where theaction of strikers was peaceful and involved no violence. The strike in the presentcase was at most a civil tort from which the respondent had adequate protectionin the courts of Massachusetts. It cannot be said seriously that engaging inthis strike was of sufficient gravity to reflect upon the personal character of thefour employees, certainly as far as their suitability for employment was concerned.7. ORDERS REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER NOT TO GIVE Ek.E.h.CT TO AGREEMENTSWith respect to contracts which constitute or are part of the unfairlabor practices of an employer, the Board has continued to issue theorders described in the Third Annual Report.618. EFFECT ON BOARD ORDERS OF AGREEMENTS NOT TO PROCEED AGAINST ANEMPLOYERPursuant to the Board's policy of giving effect to agreementswhich effectuate the policies of the act, 62 the Board will respect anagreement between an employer and an agent of the Board whichpurports to compromise unfair labor practices. Thus in Matter ofShenandoah-Dives Mining Company and International Union ofMine, Mill & Smelter Workers," the Board gave effect to such anagreement between a Regional Director of the Board and an employer,saying :5. 12 N. L. R. B. 944.Fansteet Metallurgical Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 306 U. S. 240, modifying and affg98 F. (2d) 375 (C. C. A. 7), setting aside Matter of Fansteel Metallurgical Corporationand Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local 66,5 N. L. R. B. 930.el At pp. 212-213.,c See Third Annual Report at P. 213.e3 11 N. L. R. B. 885.192197-40---8