Evening star., 1938-01-31
BY JOHN H. CLINE.

The Supreme Court today ruled that
the Federal District Court for Massa-
chusetts exceeded its authority in is
suing an injunction to prevent the
National Labor Relations Board from
investigating charges of unfair labor
practices by the Bethlehem Shipbuild-
ing Corp.
a case involving the Newport News
Shipbuilding g. Drydock Co.
The decisions in these cases are of
great Importance both to the Labor
Board and to employers. The effect of
them is that the board is given broad
powers to conduct hearings on charges
Of unfair labor practices, denying the
employer any relief in the Federal
courts until after the board had made
Its findings.
Brandeis Rebukes Lower Court.
Speaking for the court in the Beth
lehem case, Associate Justice Brandeis
rebuked the lower court with the as
sertion lit clearly appears that the de-
cree granting the injunction) was the
result of an improvident exercise of
judicial discretion"
1t was contended the corporation at
its Four River .lMcss.) plant had vio-
lated the Labor Relations Act by set
ting up company union known as
the Plan of Representation of EN-
ployes. =
4. Several employe-of officers of this Or
eanization joined in the suit against
the labor board, asserting the employees
were satisfied with their existing con-
tracts of employment and that they
desired to retain their representation
plan without change.
They added that the value of the
representation plan had been proved
by years of operation and that its al
teration would cause dissatisfaction
among employees and lead to labor dis
putes. Despite this plea from en-
ployes represented by the o"ssaniza-
ton, the court held the board should
not be prevented from exercising its
right to hold the hearine.
One of the contentious of the ror-
PoA oSAOAA W co tAlaS ~ was ilOl
in interstate commerce at its Four
River plant, thus depriving the Labor
Board of jurisdiction to investigate its
operations. The Supreme Court held,
however, that this was a question for
determination by an appellate court
after the board had made its findings,
and that a district court could not
pass upon the question.
Preliminary Injunction.
The District Court issued a pre-
liminary injunction in April, 1886, and
this injunction has prevented the
Labor Board from proceeding with the
case since it was issued.
In commenting on the failure of
the first Circuit Court of Appeals to
set aside the action of the District
Court, Justice Brandeis said:
"The Court of Appeals should have
reversed the DEGREES for preliminary
Injunction. It is true that ordinarily
the decree of a district court grant,
ing or denying preliminary injunc-
ton will not be disturbed on appeal.
But that rule of practice has no ap-
plication where, as here, there was
IN insuperable objection to the main
tenance of the suit in point of juris-
diction and where it clearly appears
that the decree was the result of an
tmprovident exercise of judicial dis
cretion."
The facts In the case involving the
Newport News company were SUBJ
stantially the same, except for the
fact that the lower courts had refused
to grant the injunction sought by the
company. Justice Brandeis, follow
ing the reasoning OF the other de-
etsion, said that refusal was proper.