J. - National Labor Relations Board

IX. LITIGATION 129'Where the corporations involved have not been directly related bystock ownership, as in the cases above cited, but where identity ofcontrol has been plain, the Courts have sustained Board ordersagainst all corporations concerned. In N. L. R. B. v. HopwoodRetinning Co. and Monarch Retinning Co., 98 F. (2d), 97, 101-2(C. C. A. 2), a Board order directed jointly against a respondentand its allegedly independent successor in business was set aside,but only because there had been no formal charge filed with theBoard against the successor. However, the Court sustained the,Board's finding that the successor was the alter ego and agent of theoriginal respondent. Thus the successor corporation was subsequentlyadjudged in contempt for its failure to comply with the Court'senforcement decree, even though the decree had not been directedagainst it eo nomine.48Moreover, the Eighth Circuit sustained a Board order against twoallegedly ind ependent corporate entities in N. L. R. B. v. ChristianA. Lund, doing business as C. A. Lund Co. and Northland Ski Mfg.Co., 103 F. (2d) 815, (C. C. A. 8), the unity of ultimate ownershipand control having been establishedFinally, orders providing for reinstatement and back pay havebeen made effective against the survivor of a copartnership despitethe death of one of the partners after the issuance of the order.N. L. R. B. v. Kiddie Kover Mfg. Co., 105 F. (2d) 179, 182-3(C. C. A. 6).Supervisory employees bind their employer by their acts.—Byoperation of the principle of respondeat superior, employers are responsiblefor supervisory employees' interferences with the self-organizationof subordinate employees, even though those interferencesare entirely unauthorized by the higher executives; 49 or even if theyare in disregard of repeated and express instructions. 50 It has beenfurther established that supervisory employees heed not possess thepower to hire or fire in order to render the employer responsible fortheir actions.'ORDERS DISESTABLISHING COMPANY UNIONSA company union's structural incapacity for acting as true representativeof employees is not a prerequisite to disestablish,ment.—The power of the Board to order an employer to disestablish a purportedlabor organization dominated, interfered with, or supportedby the employer in violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act, was upheldin N. L. R. B. v. Pen'nsyl'vania Greyhound Lines, inc., 303 U. S. 261,and in N. L. R. B. v. Pacific Greyhouind Lines, Inc., 303 U. S. 272.In the latter case the Court declared :While the formal provisions, in constitution and bylaws, for insuring employercontrol of the company union in the Pennsylvania case are wantinghere, the record shows, as the Board found, that employer control * * *was none the less effective. (303 U. S., at 274.)Y. L. R. B. v. Hopwood Retitining Co., 104 F. (2d). 302 (C. C. A. 2).49 N. L. R. B. v. A. S. Abell Co., 97 F. (21) 951, 9a6 (C. C. A. 4) ; Virginia Perry Corp.v. N. L. R. B., 101 F. (2d) 103, 106 (C. C. A. 4) ; Swift & Co. v. N. L. R. B., 106 F. (2d)87, 93 (C. C. A. 10).5, Swift & Co. v. N. L. R. B., eupra.Gi Virginia Ferry Corp. v. N. L. R. B., suPi a.