J. - National Labor Relations Board

154 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDference with self-organization) ; and the practice of barring unionrepresentatives from respondent's premises in connection with unionbusiness (as an infringement upon the employee's right to organize-and bargain collectively).Jurisdictional problems.—During the period covered by this reportseveral industries and services were involved in Board proceedingsfor the first time : insurance, retail chain distribution, credit clearance,agricultural processing, and the dairy industry. In these cases theDivision made extensive studies of the organization and operations ofboth the individual respondent and the industry itself, covering cor..porate structure and interrelationships, sources of raw materials,markets for finished products, methods of marketing, the time elementin the handling and delivery of goods, and other characteristics bearingupon the effect of internal labor unrest and strife on the flow ofgoods in interstate commerce.Following the outlines of the interstate commerce material preparedfor the Consolidated Edison" case (in which the Board wasupheld by Supreme Court decision, December 1938), the Divisioncontinued to provide materials in subsequent public utility cases,sometimes involving mere routine functions and other times substantialresearch. An outline prepared by the Division to cover theinterstate aspects of the insurance business was used by the Boardin reaching its decision to assume jurisdiction in that field. Similarbackground material was prepared prior to the issuance of a complaintin the Great *Western Mushroom 13 case.Economic data were also furnished when it was difficult to obtainmaterials in the field relating to the organization and operations ofa particular respondent. This material followed the general outlinesof that furnished in the Jones and Laughlin, 14 case, one of thetest cases on the constitutionality of the act. Special material wasprepared for cases in which there was a one-way flow of goods or inwhich respondent had no legal title to the goods which he processedand then shipped. In the A. S. Beck 15 case a questionnaire preparedby the Division was utilized in securing information fromrespondent ; the questionnaire was also used in examining companywitnesses. Similarly, in the New York Times 15 case informationwas secured through questionnaires, and it was later used as a basisfor stipulation.Frequently the Division was called upon to help clarify the meaningof a statutory exemption, e. g., whether employees engaged indate packing or other types of agricultural processing come underthe provision exempting agricultural workers, whether employeesof inter-plant railroads of manufacturing companies are subject tothe act. Its services were also required in connection with broaderquestions of jurisdiction. An illustration is the North Whittier-Heights Citrus Association 17 case, in which respondent contendedthat the Board could not order the reinstatement of certain employeesbecause the employment relationship had terminated whenthey were laid off. For the brief in this case, the Division pre-12 4 N. L. R. B. 71, 305 II. S. 197 (1938).13 Case No. 22—C-205, 22—C-211.14 1 N. L. R. B. 503, 301 U. S. 1 (1937).15 Case No. 2—C-2009." Case No. C-775.11 10 N. L. R. B. 1269.