The Washington times., 1938-12-05
Utilities Held Subject

Counsel for the Consolidated
Edison Company, insisting that II
was wholly intrastate business
maintained the Federal Govern
ment had no Jurisdiction over it
Counsel said that if it is subject tc
the Wagner act, virtually every
other utility N the country is, too
The labor board contended that
q utility which services important
interstate industries. such as rail
roads. is subject to the act.
"It does not follow, however,
said the court, because these
operations of the utilities (Con-
solidated Edison and subsidi-
aries) are of vast concern to the
people of the city and State of
New York, that they do not also
involve the interests of inter
state and foreign commerce in
such a degree that the Federal
Government was entitled to in
tervene for their protection.
For example, the governance
Of the jntrastate rates Of rail
road company may be Of great
Importance to the State and an
appropriate object of the exer-
ton of its power, but the Federal
Government may still intervene
to protect interstate commerce
from injury caused BY intraState
operations, and to that end may
override intraState rates and sup
ply a dominant Federal rule"
Subject to Control
The high court sustained the
labor board view that since Con
solidated Edison and subsidiaries
serve such important interstate
businesses in New York as the New
York Central raMroad, telegraph
and radio companies and the Fed
eral Government, it is subject to
Federal power.
Pointing out that a strike ct
Consolidated Edison would disrupt
interstate business, the court con-
tinued:
IF industrial strife due to un-
fair labor practices actually
brought about such a catas-
trophe, we suppose that no one
would question the authority of
the Federal Government to in
tervene in order to facilitate the
settlement of the dispute and
the resumption of the essential
services to interstate and foreign
industries.
But it cannot be maintained
that the eXertion of Federal
power must await the disruption
Of that commerce.
Congress was entitled to pro-
vide reasonable measures and
that was the object of the ma
tional labor relations act"
Ruling on Contracts
In overturning the labor boards
action in setting aside the sever
contracts between the ConSoli
dated and its subsidiaries and thu
local AFL unions, the court said
Further, the act gives no
impress authority to the board
to invalidate contracts with in
dependent labor organizations.
While the Wagner act author
izes the board to require an EN-
ployer to desist from unfair labol
practices. the court added:
I'VE think that this authority
to order affirmative action does
not go as far as to confer
punitive Jurisdiction enabling
the board to inflict upon the
employer any penalty it may
choose because he is engaged in
unfair labor practices, even
though the board be Of the opin-
ion that the policies of the act
might be effectuated by such an
order"
"COmpGny" Idea Wrong
The court held the Labor Boar
erred in regarding the AFL union
as virtual company unions"
Finding that AFL contracts COY
cred 10000 employees, the cour
said:
ITO say that of the 10000
who did join there were not
those who joined voluntarily OF
that the brotherhood did not
have members whom 1t coul6
properly represent in making
these contracts would be to in
dulge an extravagant and un
warranted assumption"
Dealing with the labor unio
PAETINc