J. - National Labor Relations Board

INTRODUCTIONThe Board was involved in 13 cases before. the. • United- .StatesSupreme Court during the fiscal year. Six of these were cases inwhich application was made . for a writ, of certiorari to review a lowercourt decision favorable to the Board. In five of these six instances,the Supreme Court declined to review the decision. In another case,the Supreme Court declined to review a lower court decision unfavorableto the Board ; and one case, in which certiorari was granted toreview a decision modifying a Board order, remained on the SupremeCourt docket at the close of the court term. In the six cases inwhich argument was held and an opinion rendered, the Board wasfully sustained in two, one of which did not involve enforcementof a. Board order, 9 its order was modified in two others, and setaside in the remaining two. In these cases a number of issues ofgreat importance to the administration of the act were ruled upon.The Board's jurisdiction over unfair labor practices . occurring in alarge utility system upon which instrumentalities of commerce aredependent for power was sustained in Consolidated Edison Go. v.N. L. I?. B.,1° one of the most important decisions with regard to thecommerce power of the Federal Government in recent years. Thiscase also considered the proper procedure to be followed by the Boardwhere the order issued by the Board requires the setting aside of collectiveagreements with bona. fide labor organizations. In the case ofN. L.. R. B. v. Fainblatt,11 the jurisdiction of the Board over unfairlabor practices occurring in a small enterprise engaged in processinggoods belonging to others, where the raw materials and products- areshipped across State lines, was affirmed. In the Consolidated EdisonCase and in N. L. R. B. v. Columbia Enameling & Stamping Co. ,12the nature, of the evidence adequate to support fact, findings of ,theBoard upon review in the couits was considered. In substance, 'the'Supreme Court held that the supporting evidence should be such as "areasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion," orwhich "affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact inissue" might be "reasonably inferred." In Fansteel Metallurgical-Corp. v. N. L. R. B..13 the Supreme Court ruled that the Board was -not empowered to order the reinstatement of strikers who seized', andthrough unlawful resistance to a court injunction, retained possessionof the employer's plant, even though the strike was caused and prolongedby flagrant unfair labor practices of the employer.Out of 38' decisions rendered by the circuit courts' of appeals . inBoard cases during the fiscal year, the Board's orders were enforcedin full in 12 cases; in 17 cases its orders were enforced as modified.'In 9 of the cases the Board's orders were set aside, although in onea new hearing was ordered, in another the circuit court of' appeals wassubsequently reversed, and in a• third its decision was modified by the:.Supreme Court.The Board's orders for reinstatement with back pay of eiliproyeeS"discriminatorily discharged have, for the most part, been enforced,9 This case, Ford Motor Company v. N. L. R. B., 305 U. S. 364, is discussed below..10 305 U. S. 197.11300 U. S. 601.12 306 U. S. 292.la 206 U. S. 240.14 In six of these cases, only the notice provisions of the order were modified.