J. - National Labor Relations Board

IX. LITIGATION 115ing Mill Employees Union, No. 19694, 1 N. L. R. B. 181. In this case,.the lower court had set aside a Board order, based upon findings of arefusal to bargain during a strike, requiring the company to reinstate,the striking employees and to bargain with their representatives..The Supreme Court held, although the circuit court of appeals hadlnot, that there was insufficient evidence to indicate that the companyhadbeen informed of the union's attempt to bargain with it upon_the date in question, and because of this defect in proof affirmed thedecision below, which was based upon other grounds.Consolidated Edison Co. v. N. L. R. B., 305 U. S. 197, affirmingas modified, 95 F. (2d) 390 (C. C. A. 2), enforcing Matter of ConsolidatedEdison Co. of N. F., Inc., et al. and United Electrical & Radio.Workers of Amer., 4 N. L. R B. 71. The utility system involved inthis case operates public utilities located in the New York City areaand entirely within the State of New York. However, the system_obtains the bulk of its raw materials from without the State, andsupplies energy to a multitude of enterprises engaged in interstateand foreign commerce. The Board found that it had discharged employeesfor their union activity, had engaged in industrial espionage,.and had attempted to impose a preferred union upon , its employeesas their bargaining agent. The Supreme Court's decision upholdingthe Board's jurisdiction is one of the most important in recent years.The Court enforced all provisions of the order except those whichrequired the abrogation of contracts between the company andthe preferred union. These latter provisions of the order, whichhad been upheld by the circuit court of appeals, were set asideupon the ground that the validity of the contracts, not illegalin themselves, had not properly been placed in issue and that thelabor organizations which were parties to the contracts had not beengiven adequate notice of the proceedings.N. L. R. B. v. Fainblatt, 306 U. S. 601, reversing 98 F. (2d) 615.(C. C. A. 3), and enforcing Matter of Benjamin Fainblatt and MarjorieFainblatt, doing business as Somerville Mfg. Co. and SomersetMfg. Co. and Int. Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local No. 149,.1 N. L. R. B. 864, 4 N. L. R. B. 596. The Board found here that thecompany, a small "contract" operator engaged in processing goodsbelonging to others but shipped across State lines, had sought tocurb organization of its employees through discriminatory discharges.of Union members and other antiunion measures. The circuit courtsustained these findings but refused on jurisdictional grounds toenforce the Board's order. The Supreme Court reversed the lower'court, holding that the Board had jurisdiction even though the companywas not itself engaged in interstate commerce and was ofrelatively small size.Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 306 U.- S. 240, reversingin part, 98 F. (2d) 375 (C. C. A. 7), setting aside Matter of FansteelMetallurgical Corp. and Anvil. Ass'n of Iron, Steel and TinWorkers of No. Amer., Local 66, 5 N. L. R. B. 930. In this case theBoard found that the company attempted to prevent the organizationof its employees by engaging in industrial espionage, the attemptedformation of a company union and Other antiunion activities. Whenthe company refused to bargain with the authorized representative ofits employees, a "sit down" strike occurred. The workers were dis-