J. - National Labor Relations Board

IX. LITIGATION 117ployees after refusing to bargain with their representatives. Upontheir refusal to return to work under illegal individual employmentcontracts the Hopwood firm removed to another State where theMonarch concern was organized to continue its operations. TheBoard's order, modified only as to a provision relating to employmentof an individual for the purpose of evading the Act, wasenforced against the Hopwood firm which was directed to securethe cooperation of its agent Monarch if necessary to compliance.Subsequently the Court held both companies and the president of theHopwood Co. in contempt for failure to comply with its decree. N. L.R. B. v. Hopwood Retinning Co., Inc. and Monarch Rearming Co.,Inc., 104 F. (2d) 302.N. L. R. B. v. National Licorice Co., 104 F. (2d) 655, enforcing asmodified, Matter of National Licorice Co. and Bakery and Conf.Workers Int. Union of Amer., Local Union 405, Greater N. Y. andVicinity, 7 N. L. R. B. 537. 4 Here the Board found that the companyurged its employees to abandon the union which they hadselected as their representative and suggested individual bargaininginstead. A strike followed and the company assisted in the formationof a "collective bargaining committee" and induced the employeesto sign individual employment contracts giving the companythe right to discharge for any reason. The Court enforced theBoard's order requiring the disestablishment of this "committee,"and the abrogation of the individual contracts, but withheld enforcementof the bargaining provisions of the order pending an electionto determine whether the union, whose organization the Court heldwas only tentative in form, had retained its majority status.In N. L. R. B. v. Ronni Parfura, Inc. and Ey-Teb Sales Corp., 104F. (2d) 1017, enforcing Matter of Ronni Parfum, Inc., et al. andUnited Mine Workers of Amer., District No. 50, Chemical Div.,8 N. L. R. B. 323. The Board found here that the company refused tobargain with the representatives of its employees and discharged severalof them because of their union activities. In addition the Boardfound that the company formed a company-dominated union and exactedillegal individual contracts of employment from each of its em- •ployees. In a per curiara decision the Court granted full enforcementto the Board's order remedying these unfair labor practices.THIRD CER6U1 t 5N. L. R. B. v. Fashion Piece Dye Works Inc., 100 F. (2d) 304,enforcing Matter of Fashion Piece Dye Works, Inc. and Fed. ofSilk and Rayon Dyers and Finishers of Amer., 1 N. L. R. B. 285,6 N. L. R. B. 274. Here several employees were summarily dischargedafter joining a union and a brother of one was dismissed and toldto ask his brother for the reason. Upon this and other evidence ofdiscrimination, the Board ordered reinstatement, with back pay, ofthese employees. The Court enforced the order without modification.N. L. R. B. v. Stack pole Carbon Co., 105 F. (2d) 167, enforcingMatter of Stack pole Carbon Co. and United Electrical & Radio4 Certiorari granted, Oct. 9. 1939.5 In view of the Supreme Court decision in N. L. R. B. v. Fainblatt, et al., summarizedon p. 114, a discussion of the Circuit Court decision is omitted.