NATIONAL LAB RELATIONS BOARD - National Labor Relations ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

W. JURISDICTION 83and subsequent ones in the circuit courts show that the jurisdictionof the Board is governed neither by the relative size of the unit inits industry nor, as to any operations which may not be dismissed astrivial under the maxim de minimis, by their absolute size. Whatis important is the existence of a substantial relationship to andeffect upon interstate commerce. 7 Thus, in the Planters case, thecourt, while recognizing that its employer's volume of interstate saleswas small, nevertheless regarded as controlling the fact that "Respondentcompetes in its sales in Virginia with manufacturers ofsimilar containers whose plants are located in other states." 8*Where operations substantially affect both intrastate and interstatecommerce they are within the protection of the Act. —The wellestablishedconstitutional doctrine that the Federal power is dominantwhere operations substantially affect both interstate and intrastatecommerce and the interstate and intrastate effects are intermingled,has been applied during the past year in a variety of situations.Where the interstate effects are substantial and direct, the Boardhas jurisdiction no matter what the percentage comparisons of interstateand intrastate effects are.9A potential interference with or diversion of commerce is sufficientto confer jurisdiction.—Rejecting the common claim that an employer'sunfair labor practices do not "affect commerce" where noactual interruption of commerce has occurred, the Supreme Courtheld in the Bradford case that "since the purpose of the act is toprotect and foster interstate commerce, the Board's jurisdiction canattach, as here, before actual industrial strife materializes to obstructthat commerce." 10A fortiori, as the Supreme Court likewise held in the Bradfordcase, the Board's jurisdiction is not defeated by the possibility that"respondent's customers might be able to secure the same service fromother [local] processors if a labor dispute should stop the interstateflow of materials to and from respondent's plant." 11Public utilities servicing interstate industry are subject to the act.—In the far-reaching Consolidated Edison decision of the previousfiscal year 12 it was determined by the Supreme Court that the closerelationship between a great utilities system and the interstate enterprisesit supplied was adequate to support the Board's jurisdiction,although it did not itself directly engage in interstate commerce.13The scope of this decision was further clarified this year in ConsumersPower Co. v. N. L. R. B., 113 F. (2d) 38 (C. C. A. 6) 14 where', Consumers Power Co. v. N. L. R. B., 113 F. (26) 38 (C. C. A. 6) ; N. L. R. B. v. PlantersMfg. Co., Inc., 105 F. (2d) 750 (C. C. A. 4) ; N. L. R. B. v. Cowell Portland Cement Co., 108F. (26) 198 (C. C. A. 9).'Consumers Power Co. v. N. L. R. B., 113 F. (26) 38 (C. C. A. 6); N. L. R. B. V. PlantersMfg. Co., Inc., 105 F. (2d) 750 (C. C. A. 4) ; Southern Colorado Power Co. V. N. L. R. B.,111 F. (26) 539 (C. C. A. 10).8 See also N. L. R. B. v. National Motor Bearing Co., 105 F. (26) 652 (C. C. A. 9), decidedin the previous fiscal year, where the court recited as material circumstances the facts thatrespondent "advertises on a Nation-wide basis" and that "All of respondent's competitorsare located outside of California."Cif. N. L. R. B. v. Planters Af JP. Co., Inc., 105 F. (2d) 652 (C. C. A. 4) ; N. L. R. B. v.Cowell Portland Cement Co.. 108 F. (26) 198 (C. C. A. 91.Of. N. L. R. B. v. Sunshine Mining 00., 110 F. (2d) 780 (C. C. A. 3)."Of. Consumers Power Co. v. N. L. R. B. 113 F. (26) 38 (C. C. A. 6) ; Southern ColoradoPower Co. V. N. L. It. B. 111 F. (26) 539 (C. C. A. 10) ; North Whittier Heights Citrus Assn.V. N. L. R. B., 109 F. (id) 76 (C. C. A. 9), certiorari denied, 310 II. S. 632, rehearing denied,61 S. Ct. 54."Consolidated Edison Co. v. N. L. R. B., 305 U. S. 197.I, The Edison Company received the bulk of its raw materials from sources outside theState, but the court did not base its opinion upon this narrower ground of decision." See also, Southern Colorado Power Co. V. N. L. R. B., 111 F. (2d) 539 (C. C. A. 10).
84 FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDthe court rejected a proposed distinction between an employer supplyingpower to a great industrial area and one supplying instrumentalitiesof commerce.The "agricultural labor" question.—The same realism which wehave noted in the approach of the courts to the commerce limitationupon the Board's jurisdiction has marked their approach to anotherjurisdictional problem—that of the agricultural labor exemptioncontained in section 2 (3) of the act. This question was first presentedto the courts during this past year in two Ninth Circuit cases,North Whittier. Heights Citrus Asen. v. N. L. R. B., 109 F. (2d) 76(C. C. A. 9), certiorari denied, 310 U. S. 632 15 and N. L. R. B. v.Tovrea Packing Co., 111 F. (2d) 626 (C. C. A. 9)."In the North Whittier case, the court pointed out that "The pursuitof definitions of 'agricultural laborers' through the cases leads toconfusion" and undertook a fresh examination of the question in thelight of the purpose of the act and the econOmic realities of the case.In this view, it held that the true test is not the abstract nature ofthe work done but rather the nature of the work done in its actualpractical context. In holding the act applicable to workers in acitrus fruit packing house, the court commented :The production and marketing of citrus fruits in California have undergonechanges as have various other activities in their transition from "one man"affairs to "big business" * * * Possibly the most marked change in thistransition was that of systematic marketin r, and uniformity in preparation formarketing * * * Thus the growers themselves have separated from thefarm, the work now done in the packing house * * * and have assignedit to an incorporated organization brought into being by the growers for suchparticular purpose (100 F. (2d) 76, at 79).In similar realistic vein, the Court in the Tovrea case held the actapplicable to employees in the feed mill and feeding pens maintainedas an incident to the operation of a meat packing plant. The controllingreason for the decision was stated by the Court as follows :* * * here we do not have s tock raising or feeding as an incident to astock ranch, nor do we have stock feeding or conditioning as a separate activity,but we do have stock ready for conditioning and fattening confined inrelatively small corrals and fed intensively for short spaces of time as anIncident to a meat slaughtering and packing industrial enterprise (111 F. (2d)626. at 628).The danger of treating questions Of this sort in "an intellectualvacuum" is very apparent. As the cases of the past year demonstrate,the Courts have shown themselves disposed to consider suchproblems in their total commercial context, and the Board, in presentingits cases to the courts, has endeavored to assist their deliberationsthrough the presentation of appropriate economic materials.Rehearing denied. 61 S. Ct. 54.le Certiorari denied, 61 S. Ct. 28.
Page 3 and 4:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDWILLI
Page 6 and 7:
CONTENTSPageI. Introduction 1A. Wor
Page 8 and 9:
FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL
Page 10 and 11:
I. INTRODUCTIONThe number of worker
Page 12 and 13:
I. INTRODUCTION 5finding powers. In
Page 14 and 15:
I. INTRODUCTION 7percent. There was
Page 16 and 17:
II. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BO
Page 18 and 19:
III. PROCEDURE OF THE BOARDPrevious
Page 20 and 21:
IV. STATISTICAL RECORD OF BOARD ACT
Page 22 and 23:
IV. STATISTICAL RECORD OF BOA:RD AL
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26:
IV. STATISTICAL RECORD OF BOARD Ac,
Page 30 and 31:
TABLE I V.-Disposition of unfair la
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Region.TABLE VIII.—Disposition of
Page 36 and 37:
TABLE X.-Character and results of r
Page 38 and 39:
V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHEDIn previou
Page 40: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLIS.LLED 33coupl
Page 44 and 45: V. PRINCiPLES ESTABLISHED 37tion. T
Page 46 and 47: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 39in the
Page 48 and 49: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 41conditi
Page 50 and 51: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 43majorit
Page 52 and 53: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 45"highly
Page 54 and 55: V. PRIN ICAPLES ESTABLISHED 47As we
Page 56 and 57: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 49resenta
Page 58 and 59: V. PRINCIPT.RS ESTABLISHED 51organi
Page 60 and 61: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 53the Tri
Page 62 and 63: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 55Baking
Page 64 and 65: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 57seek to
Page 66 and 67: V. PRINCLL'LES ESTABLISITED 59ineli
Page 68 and 69: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 61regardi
Page 70 and 71: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 63bargain
Page 72 and 73: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 65As note
Page 74 and 75: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 67ent rep
Page 76 and 77: V. PRINUPLES ESTABLISHED 69appropri
Page 78 and 79: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 71also be
Page 80 and 81: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 739. Prec
Page 82: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 75work, s
Page 85 and 86: 78 FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL
Page 89: VI. JURISDICTIONThe decisions of th
Page 109 and 110: 102 FIFTFI ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONA
Page 131 and 132: IX. DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1
Page 141 and 142:
134 FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
144 FIFTFI ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONA
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
XII. FISCAL STATEMENTThe expenditur
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169:
show all

NATIONAL LAB RELATIONS BOARD - National Labor Relations ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?