Opinion ID: 1502804
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Jurisdiction of the Board

Text: In Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 303 U.S. 453, 467, 468, 469, 58 S.Ct. 656, 661, 82 L.Ed. 954, the court said: The critical words of the provision of the National Labor Relations Act in dealing with the described labor practices are `affecting commerce,' as defined. Section 2 (7), 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(7).    The question that must be faced under the act upon particular facts is whether the unfair labor practices involved have such a close and substantial relation to the freedom of interstate commerce from injurious restraint that these practices may constitutionally be made the subject of federal cognizance through provisions looking to the peaceable adjustment of labor disputes.    Fourth. The direct relation of the labor practices and the resulting labor dispute in the instant case to interstate commerce and the injurious effect upon that commerce are fully established. The warehousemen in question were employed by petitioner in loading its goods either into the cars of carriers or into the trucks which transported the goods to the docks for shipment abroad or to other states. The immediacy of the effect of the forbidden discrimination against these warehousemen is strikingly shown by the findings of the Board. When the men found themselves locked out because of their joining the union, they at once formed a picket line, and this was maintained with such effectiveness that eventually `the movement of trucks from warehouse to wharves ceased entirely.' The teamsters refused to haul, the warehousemen at the dock warehouses declined to handle, and the stevedores between dock and ship refused to load, petitioner's goods. These became, in the parlance of the men, `hot' cargo.    It would be difficult to find a case in which unfair labor practices had a more direct effect upon interstate and foreign commerce. It follows that the narrow issue presented is whether the unfair labor practices here involved, directed toward the office and accounting employees, bore such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce as to make such practices subject to federal regulation. The unfair labor practices were: An increase in pay made in keeping with repeated promises of Benning throughout the spring and summer of 1937, to prevent the formation of a union by the office and accounting force; The statements made by Clark and Benning in response to inquiries made to them by office and accounting employees, and the statement made by Clark to Roach; In a proper and legitimate reduction of the office and accounting force, the selection of Stewart and Watkins for discharge because they had engaged in efforts to organize a union. To affect interstate commerce, unfair labor practices with respect to the office and accounting employees would have to prevent or impede the generation and transmission of electrical energy by the operating department for instrumentalities engaged in interstate commerce and for manufacturers of goods for sale and shipment in interstate commerce. The undisputed proof shows that the office and accounting force were receiving higher pay than like employees were receiving from other employers in Pueblo and were also receiving free street car transportation and vacations and sick leaves with pay, and in the event of a strike by the office employees, that their places could be readily filled by other persons. Mr. Bell, an organizer for the International Electrical Workers, attended the meeting held on August 9, 1937, and expressed opposition to taking the office and accounting employees into the operating employees' union. The operating employees, in their contract with petitioner, recognized the necessity for continuous operation of the electric generating and transmitting facilities and agreed not to strike and to submit any differences that might arise between them and petitioner to an arbitration board. There was undisputed evidence that a cessation of work by the office and accounting force for a period of as long as ten months would not seriously affect the generation and transmission of electric energy. Hence, it is my opinion that the facts as disclosed by this record do not warrant the finding that unfair labor practices with respect to the office and accounting force would in any substantial degree injuriously affect interstate commerce. Because of the confidential relation between the office employees and the management, the latter was opposed to the unionization of the office and accounting employees. The wisdom of that view may be challenged, but whether wise or unwise, the office and accounting employees had the right, if they saw fit, to organize for their mutual aid and protection and to bargain collectively, and petitioner should not interfere with the free exercise of that right. But in the instant case, I think the protection of that right should be through the exercise of state rather than national power. The scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government. National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin, 301 U.S. 1, 37, 57 S.Ct. 615, 624, 81 L.Ed. 893, 108 A.L.R. 1352. I think the proceeding should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the Board.