NATIONAL LAB RELATIONS BOARD - National Labor Relations ...

VII. LITIGATION 91sustaining a regional director's refusal to issue a complaint. TheBoard's motion to dismiss was pending at the close of the year. 21 Twoother suits have been filed during this period to "review" or "stay"intermediate orders of the Board in unfair labor practice cases 22 andtwo attempts were made to enjoin unfair labor practice hearings.23The Board has been granted an order to restrain an employer fromprosecuting suits in a State court against employees for rental ofemployer-owned houses occupied by them after their discharge.24The injunction was issued by the circuit court in aid of its priordecree under section 10 (d) of the Act enforcing the Board's orderrequiring reinstatement of employees with back pay (110 F. (2d) 501enforcing 12 N. L. R. B. 136), and was continued until compliance bthe employer with the circuit court's enforcing decree was obtained.As a condition of the stay of decree pending application for certiorari,which was denied on May 6, 1940, the employer was required to postbond to secure back pay. A petition for adjudication of contempt isnow pending in the circuit court.25D. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHEDAs in preceding years the procedural and substantive principlesestablished in the increasing volume of litigation arising under theAct have been so numerous that only the most important ones are setforth below.UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—SECTION 8 (1)During the year the courts have passed upon a great number ofviolations of section 8 (1) of the Act, which prohibits interference,restraint or coercion with the exercise by employees of the rightsguaranteed them in section 7 of the Act. Of the multitude of issuesraised the following are the most significant :Section 8 (1) is also violated where unfair labor practices underother sections of the act are found.—It has long been the Board'sview, in accord with the Congressional intent, 25 that the prohibitionsof section 8 (1) are general and embrace all the unfair labor practicesdefined in the remaining subsections of section 8. This view has beengenerally accepted by the courts with respect to violations of section8 (2) , (3) and (4). 27 Thus, encouragement of a company-dominatedunion in violation of section 8 (2) clearly operates to discourage membershipin a competing outside union and hence interferes with the21 1n the Matter of Acme Semi-Anthracite Coal Company and Progressive Mine Workers ofAmerica, International Union, XVI–C-451, motion to dismiss granted Oct. 22, 1940.23 Ex Lax, Inc. V. N. L. R. B ., denied Feb. 28, 1940 (C. C. A. 2) ; Wilson cf Co. V. N. L.R. B., dismissed July 16, 1940 (C. C. A. 3)."Remington-Rand, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., denied Oct. 6, 1939 (C. C. A. 2) ; Sanco Piece DyeWorks Inc. v. Herrick (S. D. N. Y.), dismissed, 33 F. Supp. 80; application for stay Pendingappeal denied Apr. 17, 1940 (C. C. A. 2).N. L. R. B. v. The Good Coal Co., Apr 12, 1940 (C. C. A. 6)." See contempt proceedings, pp. 88, 120.20 Senate Rept. No. 573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 9; House Rept. No. 1147, 74th Cong., 1stSess., pp. 15, 17.2, Union Drawn Steel Co. v. N. L. R. B 109 F. (2d) 587 (C. C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B. v.H. B. Fletcher Co., 108 F. (2d) 459 certiorari denied, 309 II. S. 678: Titan Metal Mfg. Co.v. N. L. R. B. 106 F. (2d) 254 (C. C. A. 3), certiorari denied, 308 U. S. 615; see also,N. L. R. B. V. Remington Rand, Inc.. 94 F. (2d) 862 (C. C. A. 2). certiorari denied 304U. S. 576' N. L R. B. v. Stackpole Carbon CO 105 F. (2d) 167 (C. C. A. 3), certioraridenied 308 II. S. 605; N. L. R. B. v. Willard, inc.. I 98 F. (2d) 244 (App. D. C.), decidedduring the previous fiscal years.275987-41----7