(c) of the act. The company sought the injunction in connection with a declaratory judgment action instituted for the purpose of establishing the validity of a collective bargaining agreement between the company and another union. The Board had found that this contract contained an illegal union-security clause and, therefore, was not, as contended by the company, a bar to the determination of the representative of the employees involved. In denying the injunction, the court held that the company failed to show that the union's certification would result in such irreparable injury as would warrant the relief sought. In the court's opinion, the mere possibility that the company might be subjected to economic pressure by a rival union was too remote and speculative an injury to justify injunctive action against the Board. However, the court rejected the Board's contention that the company's motion for injunctive relief should have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. In the court's opinion, jurisdiction to entertain the company's motion for injunctive relief existed under the rule announced in Fay v. Douds, since the company's allegation that it was not accorded a sufficient opportunity to submit evidence bearing on the validity of the unionsecurity clause held illegal by the Board raised a substantial constitutional question of due process. Also, in the court's opinion, the threat of injury, though not warranting a preliminary injunction, was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in another case, affirmed the district court's refusal to enjoin the Board from proceeding with a determination of whether an attorney, who allegedly assaulted a Board representative in the course of a hearing, should be barred from further practice before the Board or should otherwise be disciplined. In the court's opinion, the plaintiff was not entitled to judicial relief without having first exhausted his administrative remedies. The court pointed out (1) that it was for the Board in the first instance to determine its disciplinary powers, and (2) that upon considering the merits of the case the Board might decide against taking disciplinary action. 2. Other Litigation In one case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Board. On the basis of established precedent, the court rejected the Worthington Pump and Machinery Corp. v. Douds, 97 F. Supp. 656 (D. C., So. N. Y.). 172 F.2d 720 (C. A. 2). 1 Camp v. Herzog, 190 F. 2d 605 (C. A., D. C.). See Fifteenth Annual Report, p. 213. The Board subsequently suspended the complaining attorney from the privilege of practicing before it for a period of 2 years. 96 NLRB No. 7 (September 10, 1951). Edwards v. N. L. R. B., 189 F. 2d 950. appellant's contention that the Board had improperly delegated to its regional director the power to grant a subpoena in an unfair labor practice proceeding. In another case, in which the Board had instituted proceedings for the enforcement of a back-pay order, the court denied the Board's application for an order temporarily restraining the sale of the property of the respondent employer under the foreclosure decree of a State court.10 The Board's application was based on its belief that the foreclosure action was instituted by the company's stockholders and officers for the purpose of defeating the court's jurisdiction in the enforcement proceeding. However, the court held that it was without power to review the final decree of the State court. 10 N. L. R. B. v. Ozark Hardwood Co., 188 F. 2d 354 (C. A. 8). APPENDIX A Definitions Of Types Of Cases Used In Tables The following designations, used by the Board in numbering cases, will be used in the tables in appendix B to designate the various types of cases: CA Cases A charge of unfair labor practices against an employer under section 8 (a). CB Cases A charge of unfair labor practices against a union under section 8 (b) (1), (2), (3), (5), (6). CC Cases A charge of unfair labor practices against a union under section 8 (b) (4) (A) (B), (C). CD Cases A charge of unfair labor practices against a union under section 8 (b) (4) (D). RC Cases A petition by a labor organization or employees for certification of a representative for purposes of collective bargaining under section 9 (c) (1) (A) (i). RM Cases A petition by employer for certification of a representative for purposes of collective bargaining under section 9 (c) (1) (B). RD Cases A petition by employees under section 9 (c) (1) (A) (ii) asserting that the union previously certified or currently recognized by their employer as the bargaining representative, no longer represents a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. UA Cases A petition by a labor organization under section 9 (e) (1) for a referendum to authorize it to make a contract requiring membership in such union as a condition of employment. UD Cases A petition by employees under section 9 (e) (2) asking for a referendum to rescind a bargaining agent's authority to make a union-shop contract under section 9 (e) (1). C Cases A charge of unfair labor practices against an employer under section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, prior to amendment. R Cases A petition for certification of a representative for purposes of collective bargaining with an employer under section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, prior to amendment. APPENDIX Statistical Tables for Fiscal Year 1951 The following tables present a detailed statistical record of the cases received and handled by the National Labor Relations Board during the fiscal year 1951. Table 1.-Number of cases received, closed, and pending by identification of complainant or petitioner, fiscal year 1951 The union-shop authorization poll was abolished by Public Law 189, approved by the President Oct 22, 1951. However, the law still provides for deauthorization polls when appropriate. Includes 8 UD cases. Includes 7 UD cases. Includes 1 UD case. |