Document: 339 U.S. 577 70 S.Ct. 830 94 L.Ed. 1077 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDv.POOL MFG. CO. No. 435. Argued April 18, 1950. Decided May 15, Mr. A. Norman Somers, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John M. Scott, Fort Worth, Tex., respondents. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case is a companion to National Labor Relations Board v. Mexia Textile Mills, 563, 826. Respondent manufacturer clothing in Texas, and engaged interstate commerce within meaning labor relations acts.1 In December 1943, designated Local Union 251 United Garment Workers America, affiliated with American Federation Labor, exclusive bargaining representative certain respondent's employees. 1945, charged respondent violations §§ 8(1) 8(5) Act connection strike going on at that time. The Board's complaint was issued pursuant these charges 1946; hearing held; Trial Examiner's intermediate report issued; and, since no exceptions were entered by respondent, Board, August 26, 1946, adopted findings,2 conclusions recommendations, ordered cease desist its refusal bargain Union. With limitations, company also offer reinstatement back pay employees who had gone strike. N.L.R.B. 540 (1946). 2 Two one-half years later, February 17, 1949, petitioned Court Appeals Fifth Circuit enforcement order. moved leave adduce additional evidence. It stated it bargained date order, but agreement been reached; made effort early 1948; questioned whether retained majority unit, informed they left Union, Union's organizer stated, according rival union 'substantial group' membership; facts come attention 'record instant closed completed'; finally passage statute imposing duty upon might affect disposition before Board. 3 On 13, an order identical pertinent part quoted We granted certiorari, 1950, 338 909, 349. 4 Although concedes decision governs bar, single issue may deserve separate treatment. waited two sought There suggestion length delay have influenced ordering take evidence question compliance. regard this as doubtful, view action case, when petition filed only nine months after But any event we without consequence case. 5 course primary responsibility effectuating policies Act. has determined those are advanced some cases resorting processes negotiation employer rather than compulsion, well trouble expense, decree. See § 202.13 earlier regulations regarding Management Act, 12 Fed.Reg. 5651, 5653 (1947). be helpful reaching immediate solution problem; others, exhaustion techniques decree requested consume many such fail. strict judicial time limitation duration presented would frustrate deliberate purpose Congress permitting, not requiring, resort decree.3 Cf. 10(b), which states definite period Compare Creosoting Co., 6 Cir., 139 F.2d 193; Electric Vacuum Cleaner 1942, 315 685, 697—698, 62 846, 852, 86 1120. must forget 'question settlement (with employer) shall accepted definitive decide * *.' General Motors Corp., 179 221, 222. employer, could obtained review entered, 10(f), hardly position object. Todd 173 705; Andrew Jergens 9 175 130, 134. contrary argument more explicit terms Crompton-Highland 337 217, 69 960, coming us from Circuit. year three brief response Appeals, alleged collectively nearly prior enforcement, requiring collective should enforced. Noting delay, asked afforded 'an opportunity prove facts.' denied 'belated' reason here, coupled 'the earnest assertions complied previous 1948, 167 662, 663. reversed, holding 'that justified, under circumstances 'Even though January 1, carried good faith rates other matters, enforcing original against making general increase consulting representatives justifiable. '* character lawful made, does become moot because obeyed or changing indicate need less made.' Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 261, 271, 58 571, 576, 82 831, 115 A.L.R. 307. also, Federal Trade Comm. Goodyear Tire & Rubber 304 257, 863, 1326.' page 225, 964, n. 7. 7 think rationable persuasive here. Otherwise intent violating ready means escape through use delaying tactics negotiation, culminating filing motions sought, thus effectively frustrating now face 10(e) refer matter appropriate showing subsequent several recognition, yet acted upon, claims longer Nor alone mature into denial make necessary adduction Eanet, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 15. fatal, cannot save below. Like companion, vacated decreed 10(e), unless 'extraordinary circumstances' pleaded justify failure urge objections 8 Order vacated. FRANKFURTER JACKSON, dissenting. For dissenting opinion, see 833. 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., U.S.C.A. 61 136, (Supp. III) 141 seq. Including rejection employer's allegation represented unit. 'The Senate amendment followed present language act, permits require do so. conference adopts amendment.' H.R.Conf.Rep.No.510, H.R. 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 55.

Category: 8