Evening star., 1939-11-30
Reversal Of n. |. R. B.
In Court Interests
House investigators
Committee Will Call
Congress- Attention
To Furniture Ruling
~ the Associated Press.

~ the Associated Press.
Congressional investigators Of the
National Labor Relations Board
showed interest today in an Appel
late Courts suggestion that the
board had no right to substitute
surmise, suspicion and guess for
proof" in its prosecution Of an en-
ployer.
Oncials Of the investigating COM
mittee headed by Representative
Smith, Democrat, of Virginia, said
they would direct the attention of
Congress to the courts overthrow
of q case against the Empire Fur
niture Co. Of johnson City, Tenn.
All three judges Of the Sixth Cir
cult Court OF Appeals at Cincin-
natl joined In saying:
I'VE understand fully that the
board is not bound strictly by tech
nical rules and evidence. We do
not understand this Is a caveat to
arbitrarily substitute surmise, suspi-
cion and guess for proof"
Findings Challenged by Court.
The board had ordered reinstate-
ment of three employees and pay
ment of back wages to fourth.
The court held that evidence was
lacking that the men had been let
60 for union activity.
The court also held that a board
finding that the company refused
to agree to bargain with the union
involved. even if an employe elec-
ton showed the union to be the
employees choice, flies in the face
Of the evidence"
'It may not be amiss," the court
added, indeed, it may be in the
highest public interest to observe
that the beneficent purposes of the
act will not be effectuated by de-
cisions such as that presently re-
viewed"
Conflicts Pointed Out.
Edmund M. Toland, counsel for
the House Committee, said the case
had been examined by committee
attorneys and that the courts rul-
ing would be placed in the commit
tee record-for Congress and the
public to read.
Circuit Judges Xenophon Hicks,
Charles c. Simons and Florence E.
Allen were. the juriStS who denied
the petition for reinstatement of the
employees.
The court also passed on the
boards command that the company
cease and desist" from discourag-
ing membership in labor organiza-
tions and "coercing" employees and,
on the Affirmative side, that it bar
gain collectively with representa-
tives of its employees.
THE board finds" the court said,
"that the respondent refused to
agree to bargain with the union
even If at an election it were desig-
mated as the employe bargaining
agency.
This finding not only flies in
the face Of evidence produced by
the respondent through witnesses
whose credibility is not impeached,
but is in direct conflict with the
evidence of its own representatives"
The court said q field examiner
of the board had replied, probably
they did: I think they did, yes"
when asked whether company OFF,
cials had said they would bargain
with the Textile Workers Organ
izing Committee if an election
showed that union commanded
majority of the company's workers.
Had Asked for Election.
That the company had made re
peated request" for an election was
not controverted in the boards
hearing record, the court said.
1T wished to have it held forth
with" the decision added, but the
union representatives urged upon it
the necessity of time within which
to perfect necessary machinery for
holding it."
The court held that in the case
of each of the four men involved
evidence was lacking that they had
been discharged for union activity.
Three of the men, it said, were
''laid of" on account of insufficiency
Of work rather than discharged.
The fourth, it found, was discharged
for violating a company rule.