*1 plicable necessarily regulations. It would rejected properly
follow that the Tax Court
the taxpayer’s contention that the whole
amount profit taken bond should be earnings
into profits” as “accumulated January otherwise, 1943; bond
profit doing would he double in re- duty profits liability
ducing taxpayer’s tax excess subsequent years. Accord,
for 1943
Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation (Supp. 1951). 9.37
§
Taxpayer suggests including profit earnings profits
bond second
time by computing avoided could
annual depreciatipn profit and the excess-profits-tax purposes ultimate sale for Kerner, Judge, Circuit dissented. assets, unreduced basis contemplated basis 113(lb) reduced § (3) only purposes. for income-tax How- ever, resort a different of ac- method counting when computing “accumulated
earnings profits” under (a) (4) § from that determining used in taxable in- disapproved
come was Commissioner
Internal Revenue v. South Texas Lumber
Co., supra.
The decision of the Court Tax is affirmed.
JOLIET CONTRACTORS ASS’N et al. v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD.
No. 10323. Appeals
United States Court Seventh Circuit.
Jan. Price, M. Charles Harold Burgess, D. Mahin, Meier, Charles B. Willard C.
Leish, Spray, Underwood, Price & 111., petitioners. Chicago, Findling, Associate David P. Gen. Coun- Somers, sel, A. Norman Asst. Gen. Coun- Come, sel, Bott, George Norton Gen- J. J. Andrews, Counsel, Attorneys, Alice eral Labor Relations all of National C., respondent Washington, D. *2 834 collectively) Carmell, Asher, gain 8(b)(4)(A) and Gubbins Sec. D. and Daniel (secondary Asher, boycott) of all of Chica- the Act. Segall,
& and Lester curiae, Union 111., go, for amici Glaziers’ Act, Pursuant to 10(7) of Sec. Painters, 27 of Local No. of Brotherhood Board, September 9, 1948,petitioned Hangers Paper Ameri- Decorators and United States District the North- 'Court for ca. ern injunction District Illinois for an against continuance of Union’s second- KER- MAJOR, Judge, and Before Chief ary boycott, adjudication pending final FINNEGAN, Judges. Circuit NER and court, hearing, grant- Board. The after injunction. ed the MAJOR, Judge. Chief pursuant to petition This a Sec- filed The case Examiner was heard Trial Labor Relations 10(f) December, 1948, of the National tion and amended, 29 Act, 136, 1949, 18, U.S.C.A. January, as 61 Stat. July and on seq., set aside to et review and Trial Examiner filed an intermediate re- § port Relations order the National Labor findings which contained detailed rela- practice dismissing an unfair labor tive to the activities and conduct of thereon, complaint upon charges respective parties. filed issued Predicated and petitioners. decision The Board’s and Examiner concluded that the Union agent reported Meyers engaged in NLRB order its unfair are practices meaning labor within the of Sec. phases engaged are in various Petitioners Act, and that un- 8(b) (4) (A) of business of the and construction fair labor affected Illinois, Cir- within this Joliet, Judicial (7) meaning 2(6) and within the of Sec. Associa- Petitioner Contractors cuit. Examiner exonerated the Act. The as the Associa- (sometimes referred agent charges Union’s Hoffman from non-profit corporation Illinois tion) ais charges predicated and the Union on the twenty-two general con- composed of some 8(b) (1) (A) Sec. Act. and re- in the construction engaged tractors Examiner recommended issuance of an industrial, resi- pair commercial and directing Union order forty-four some buildings, and dential Meyers, agent, and and its business “Cease The Associa- specialty sub-contractors. or in, or or en- engaging inducing desist from membership two includes its tion also members of Local No. 27 couraging the and install glazing contractors who in, engage or a concerted refusal strike glazing services build- perform all of the per- employment in the their course of vicinity, gen- and ing construction any employer, form where an services for with erally sub-contracts under object require employ- thereof is to col- was the The Association contractors. employer person any other or other er or agency all its mem- bargaining lective any doing cease business member contractors. bers, including Association, Contractors corporations petitioners, remaining employer who' uses or sells partnerships, are lumber sash, used or sold or has purchasing, engaged in dealers lumber and build- sash.” warehousing selling materi- materials, including Board' On dismissed June als, area. to contractors stated, complaint its decision Respondents’ complaint, filed October “We find merit The Board’s Union, operations of the against Glaziers’ tention because 1948, was directed essentially Employers of Paint- herein of the Brotherhood involved No. 27
Local Decorators, Paper character, Hangers in the exer- ers, local discretion, referred to should decline as- (hereinafter cise of its America Meyers jurisdiction,” and find that George H. “we agents, and its sert Union) pol- alleged Hoffman. viola- not effectuate R. John jurisdiction in (Union exercise 8(b)(1)(A) restraint icies of Sec. for reconsider- rights organize proceeding.” Motions and bar- employees’ Union, dismissal, resulting ation of the Board’s filed order activities admittedly petition- secondary boycott General in violation Counsel ers (charging parties Board), membership the Act. The before *3 composed windows, is glaze the men denied Board. who they building doors and other court, materials — The issues before contested put glass. includes within its brief, as stated are: Board’s jurisdiction metropolitan the entire Chica- Whether, “1. involving cases area, go including the area. The Joliet industry, building and construction Company Glass and Paint and the discretionary authority, Board has the Company, Porter Glass members of the cases, which it all to decline has in other Association, employ Contractors jurisdiction dispute impact where members the Union. The latter relatively on commerce is insubstantial. operates hiring glazing hall which the T’ an- question “2. Assuming metropolitan Chicago contractors in the affirmative, whether swered they Joliet) area need (including call when discretionary properly Board exercised this Long prior to men. enactment authority here.” amended Act of the Union did not seriously challenge Petitioners do not the permit any pro- of its members to work on issues, stated, although they contested thus jects preglazed that used material. building argue Congress do amended windows, doors, glazing storm sash man- gave clear parts building of a can be done secondary date hear and determine site or at the the construction industry. charges building particular factory where the mate- any event, In it contended rial When at the is manufactured. done discretion, any, is an ex- Board’s factory, glazed. it is called or mill tremely limited In the nature. view had in Contractors in area situation, we will not take be past quantities large used mate- necessary petitioners’ to reach us preglazed at rials which had been respect. in this tention factory. Assuming that issues contested as many years 'had The Union in effect correct, we think stated Board “by-laws working rules” certain they reaching fall short of the basic is- required that all work must be specifical- sue for our determination. More done of construction. Article site ly, assuming that the the dis- Board has reads, glazing “All XVI sash and cretionary authority jurisdiction “to decline respective job must be each site done on dispute where the on com- require building.” by-laws or relatively insubstantial,” merce is the more agreement between contractor and the employed basic issue is whether glazing Union that all work which yardstick a correct or standard in evaluat- “shall glazed contractor undertakes impact. ing such And whether the Board respective job by on each members” discretionary properly exercised its au- VI, by-laws Union. Article Sec. “ thority depends upon in turn a solution of * * * provides, agent the business this issue. jobs supervise all shall glazing done dispute within the of Local No. is no as the facts
There as agreement Examiner 27 and enforce conditions of Trial and as found dis- shown, shops the record. As jobs.” IV, closed the in >all on all Article dismissing complaint took S, no providing for Sec. of a use the Trial issue with Examiner as to the reads, label, “This label shall be for the Thus, the facts. Board’s dismissal raises good use all the standing, members factual legal rather than considerations. wilfully any member refusing to use or it on sash this label on un- related, of the situation so far view any jobs or for unfair appears relate the fair contrac- facts insofar they tor, give any- bear on who loan shall or or sell to glazier local, Early January, connive one, not a member of this office the Union stewards were called into label, shall use of the the fraudulent Chicago and told that time further expelled without union they up to the Union would have to live notice.” could do rules 100% testified, president of The. any jobs any glazing on where there was used is no sash “there January, Paul G. preglazed sash. it,” object to job because union O’Neill, largest job into enters “preglazed sash never homes, Joliet, constructing fifty G.I. there men are I know of when our *4 $300,000. involving Part an investment of the use against because we have a rule sash preglazed of these houses had wood testified, “And He also preglazed sash.” installed, open sash and others had metal under the contractors obligation is the glazed job. glaziers, to be on Union obligation of the contract, and also George employees glazing contractor any job members, to work on not do Hacker, engaged glaze who were to * * job. done glazing not on open sash, other saw some metal that provision he is If a member violates that They preglazed houses had sash installed. disciplinary action.” subject to presi- stopped work, called the Union vice testified agent of the Union business A Glass, dent, di- Chicago, and were Max job did they on a which if found sash that preglazed to rected cease work until label, it classified was not bear the Union open in- was new sash sash removed and every day job that mem- unfair an project. Contractor the whole stalled jobs refuse to leave the Union bers of substan- this direction O’Neill followed jobs conform because the do not expense, project entire then tial and' the the sash rules either because the Union Since glazed glaziers. Union was glazed on the mill or glazed only open time has used sash. that O’Neill a member of than job someone other did large that his investment He testified When the the Union. permit not the chance of further work away stay along, glaziers go refuses to type this he would stoppage of and that job. still be economical more Building affiliated with The Union is rule. except for the Union sash and also with Chicago Council in Trades following 1947 and On March area, in- jurisdictional councils other stoppage, a committee O’Neill work building trades cluding that Joliet. petitioner with the Association met Joliet Councils Building Trades affiliated with Council, Building the Glaziers’ Trades report to Union cities in the various Mr. Union, glazing contractors. done glazing jobs on which Glass, president of Chicago vice Max site. One of the on the Union, “they had at- Glaziers’ stated that Building with the affiliations Union’s preglazed tempted use to eliminate trade that Council is Trades time, and for some Area sash Joliet support enforcing the Union in unions they were had come when that time stop- extent work its rules even definitely He eliminate it.” said going to crafts. pages by other “they going enforce that that necessary police At the area.” against preglazed build- it was rules Union meeting, Joseph City general contractor have been enforced ing material president Glass many years, the re- Union vice with Girard asked Chicago for twenty-five used about materials in what could done sult that such placed however, project on was not until home he area. It told him attempted preglazed sash. Glass to enforce its order the Union job he use sash on construction area. could rules Joliet day’s glazier’s paid one if he the Union attempt which marked in- twenty- for each of the cash pay ($17.50) events shown ception of series of controversy. five houses. instant repre- attended the Trades Council in The contractors continued resist Association, sash, attempted and in Contractors ban on sentatives Hoffman, contrac- June, including Strandberg R. John Hacker, Hoffman, bus- Painters Local No. tor with agent business (affiliated agent. meeting iness with the same International At reiterated herein), arranged Strandberg, a called Hoffman as Glaziers’ Union have Strandberg meeting Chicago Mey- H. he would not let George job had been (now deceased), glaziers on because he agent ers business and had not using preglazed chief windows executive of the Glaziers’ Union. that meet- Ro'sitch, stop using At president Building agreed Mr. them. Council, Orbison, that all of ing Hoffman insisted Trades and Mr. business contractor, tractors, glazier representative carpenters, including the Max Mr. Welsch, containing sign with the Union Glass and a contract contractors Arnold Joseph provision preglazed sash Roy present. not to use Girard Ice were you have protested Joliet, saying, “I cannot let The contractors ban in sash, you agree go along unless were told that men *5 they definitely would to to contract.” up have live they those get rules in if to were Joliet Thereafter, on November glaziers. Meyers Union Mr. con- gave wrote the Contractors Association Joliet Union copy tractor Welsch a form Union summarizing demands of the agreement contractors, of which con- Union, fact calling that attention provision
tained all work glazing permit refusal of the Union to job. be done on should At that meet- jobs members to on ing the contractors were told: Joliet materials were used amounted to a “ * * * Glass, Meyers Mr. told Mr. jobs up and threat to tie all construction us that that condition being was enforced in met. The unless demands Chicago, definitely and that we would position letter set forth of Con- n haveto live up those rules in to Association, glazing tractors including get we were glaziers, to union and that bargain It offered to members. pay we would traveling have to time and for a glazing contract for the local con- expense, traveling and that we defi- would they tractors on the basis nitely using preglazed have to cease or mill jobs regardless able to do work on in Joliet glazed windows.” pre- of whether or not was there some November, 1947, Union glaziers job. sash on the Hoffman testified plate glass to install refused on the Remiens that that letter stated substance of the job Laboratory because the had re- owner November, meeting discussion placed glass years some other over the replied 1947. This was not letter which had been out broken children. Hoffman. Meyers, agent, George required Union November, At or this same time in about all removed and reinstalled 1947,George Meyers George called Hacker glaziers plate Union before the glass could and told him to tell his brothers who were be set. operating the Hacker-Sime Lumber Com- In November, George Hacker pany (petitioners herein) stop selling agreed to do the store-front glazing on the preglazed stop sash and to glazing steel Poultry Company Reliable brick construc- Meyers night. picket sash threatened to job tion Magnus on which Strandberg T. supply and to refuse Hacker-Sime general contractor. Hoffman refused George glaziers. Hacker with permit work, glaziers to because Strand- 5, 1948, Hoffman, January represent- On berg sign would not banning contract Union, ing the Glaziers’ sent the Associa- preglazed sash. Strandberg had been us- asserting a letter glazing exclusive ing preglazed sash. Union, stating This occurrence job, must be done on the meeting resulted and “Glaz- November, 1947, later in Building iers at the Local be unable to furnish non-signatories George shipment glaziers Hacker to direct from union $4,000 date.” out agreement mentioned amounting after the above to about state yearly. course, shipment, was with That 1948, Union Commencing January, regard to the & Com- Glass Paint designating system listing evolved a pany. “unfair,” “fair” all of contractors as stipulated “It is further us between they used or not depending whether on purchased all of sash is .O’Neill, who glazed sash. Contractor general contractors nine mate- use agreed to cease the companies charging parties lumber who stated, was rial heretofore reason case, in this by the delivered lumber placed Contractors the “fair” list. companies plants their local Welsch, Mazzucco Bockholdt and Swenson, * * * general contractors. Later, another were also cleared. “Approximately certain half prepared pre-glazed list originated sash outside Illi- as “fair” because designated tractors were State nois, and the assembled preglazed sash. remainder was to use agreed not materials, within the state glass, frames numer- During the months first sash, open originated all of out- committees meetings ous were held between side State Illinois. rep- petitioners those representing the stipulated “It is further in an effort to settle resenting the Union complete'their contractors cannot controversy. construc- stumbling block buildings tion of without agreement that both sides installation reaching an *6 glass; delay that the the of ref- in installation position with in were adamant glass completion causes delay material. the use of erence to structures; that certain trades or artisans it relate the necessary We to think the not work on structures after No- place in the incidents took numerous which installed, vember glass until the as such the rules de- year Union’s when lathers, plasterers, painters, plumbers and pat- They a enforced. follow mands were * * * electricians. to re- to we have tern those which similar stipulated “It is also by that reason the of the They strangle- reveal clearly ferred. glaziers refusal of the union to work on upon the hold which the Union n jobs pre-glazed installed, the sash area, the and this situa- in Joliet general contractors have had to to use elect is- District Court continued the until - pre-glazed sash and forego the use un- of late in injunction sued its ion glaziers, or to glaziers use the union question, bearing As forego and pre-glazed use of sash.” stipulation pertinent to a think it note In connection with stipulation, there before the Trial hearing into entered was before the by received Trial Examiner Examiner, part: it in recited wherein was agreement exhibits, two designated Ap- respect to that with agreed “It been pendix C, B Appendix and re- former named, all contractors general those lating to and the contractors by done glazing have their them latter to the lumber building ma- Company and the Por- &Glass Paint terial dealers. it We think unnecessary who also Company, supply ter Glass Appendix set B Appendix forth C in gen- glass is glass. The delivered detail. The former discloses the total con- con- job glazing from eral contractor’s struction business of the contractors there- state, orig- within the shop tractor’s in a named for twelve-month period, in an state, being there no inated outside of $2,997,370, amount of pur- materials in the State of manufacturer such by chased said contractors $1,- amounted to Illinois. 357,468,that materials which originated out by amounted to purchased $1,004,870, state glass is “The state, directly deliv- materials received and is from out of contractors within $86,404. within state amounted This them warehouses from exhibit ered n by O’Neill, Paul G. largest extent testified to state, except shows con- brief, ex- tractor, amount And point at another purchased material position states: $275,000, $247,500 originated plaining its. the Board which is, consid- by operations “That would be $27,500 out of state and received was together, ered separately Contractor ratherthan directly him out of state. from the Board determining materials in whether purchased Arnold W.elsch would, orig- juris- assert $145,000, $101,5.00 policy, as matter of amount of which just $13,000 viewed, re- inated diction. So the situation out state and separate charges though of state. as number by ceived out directly him from Company had involv- filed each Contractor Peterson been Hansen $153,- purchased a different amount material $99,970 target action.” originated primary from with- of the Union’s out $12,304 the state and received reasoning em- judgment, In our thus directly it out state. These from- ployed by ignores realities largest shown to have con- the three been obj sought the situation as to ective both purchased, tractors as to material both accomplished and the' iby to be originating directly and that received from result, only, part be- which it achieved Appendix out of state. C lists seven build- enjoined cause it was District Court dealers, ing and material and shows which, permitted order is if the Board’s purchased them materials stand, pursue it until there will be free $1,664,025. amounted They purchased is no used materials out from the state in of' That struction area. $1,293,430. shipped Punchases amount of speculation result is not left to directly out of the from state amounted to guess is shown the Union’s edict con- $1,031,705. purchased These dealers by-laws provision tained in its $149,779, materials in the amount of requires every to be inserted purchased preglazed originating materials bargaining agreement. This same Union out $126,224, state amount of Chicago has achieved this result in the area directly shipped materials and there is no reason to doubt but $24,- the state in the out of amount of *7 will in the absence restraint do like- target area. wise Its is The Board exercised asserted dis- general separately, directed at its contractors cretionary argues, to dismiss the com- authority the Board all as but at business— plaint contractors, that general on reason sub-contractors and produced by commerce the Union activities supplies. dealers in material and More result, was insubstantial. reaching specifically, In it is directed pre- use the Board considered only the of glazed amount material in the building and con- preglazed material directly received from struction in area. And out state each of the contractors. the fact that illegal prac- the victims of this sum, its brief the states: “In picked time, this tice are off one a or that case, view, accede, in the Board’s boiled down to a some of them to the Union’s de- separate disputes, series of each involving mands, dispel does not the irresistible con- primary contractor target, a as they collectively clusion that the tar- get subcontractor of the Union as the sec- activities. disagree We dispute, reasoning Board’s ondary target. each both the fact that some of the contractors secondary employer acceded to primary was en- Union demands business, demonstrates an purely local ab- gaged in a which af- common sence policy Association primarily because commerce of ‘in- fected dispute and that resolution of the purchases type of materials. must rest direct’ This upon an individual basis. the Board had The fact commerce on is that they all driven into the was too indirect were concluded and in- same viously corner juris- thereby the exercise of had a common to warrant interest. substantial That some resisted demands and that diction.” not cott. they could ma- The Board also that the surrendered because asserts others jority other pressure economic the sales material resist the does, made objective persons minimize' the dealers were other reasons il- dispel than sought accomplished proves contractors. to be what that Just do not legal challenge with know unless Union has is imposed boycott fully on not accomplished objective. fronted reason of the its seems building certain and construction contractors all will be precluded from' area. material the Joliet and that the business the material deal- totality situation We think.the ers as well as- impaired commerce considered, re- which has must both that extent. And in probability, all if the boycott as well sulted .as permitted pursue is illegal ob- result, yfliich measuring likely is jective, sale of preglazed material in merely view- impact, commerce rather than area will thing become a of each individual as activities past, as the Chicago area. has done. Moreover, scant, gives any, disregards . reasoning The Board’s consideration inevitable effect on secondary real effect aof building materials other than flow materials in those directly involved the real the fact that ignores commerce. It complained of, and this notwithstanding it boycott in the build- secondary effect of a is stipulation shown parties stop- industry is ing and construction ais matter of knowledge, common building materials from page of the flow that is, that when members of the Glaziers’ dealers and thence the manufacturers Union refuse to job, application makes the to the contractors. It craftsmen do likewise, thereby resulting in the material whether of the Act turn a complete stoppage of work with the re- directly produced moved out of state sultant cessation of the use all building through the or to contractor material. Thus the inflow of all to discern are unable material dealer. We material stymied, and this result thought that commerce is not it can be how certain where the inflow to the con- merely because substantially “affected” tractors through the local dealers as it is propor- purchase only small contractors where it is directly to the contractors. This directly tion of situation was aptly described the Gen- state. The local dealers from without eral Counsel support Board in of his purchase contractors from whom motion for reconsideration of the volumes, decision. *8 large it in as the material receive He stated: shows, the state. It is from without record contractors, pro- when the obvious “Thus, the unions in the in- construction material, will no such scribed dustry, through particularly their Build- dealers, the local longer purchase it from Councils, can, ing frequently Trades and equally obvious that the interstate it is and do, complete a shut down construction impaired dealers of business the project unions, of the when one member extent. work, doing only segment a small dispute becomes involved in labor with attempts, however, justify an The Board employer. Moreover, it is common eliminating knowl- position in from considera- its edge that in industry the construction done the there by the interstate business interdependence theory general between on the the dealers there material contractors, the dispute subcontractors and the between and such nowas suppliers, words, building producers, the material Union was not man- dealers—in ufacturers, practice processors, labor and against in an unfair dealers which engaged closely argument stoppage any- this be- is so knit that a work think dealers. We the point. question along progress is as the of .the construction side necessarily project operations, commerce and whether the affects impact on production, boy- purchases, of the direct victims and dealers the sales Furthermore, industry. in- this who diction over parties constitute the Board’s Congress fully cognizant of pattern. tegrated industry past, but power in the its refusal to exercise impor- emphasize factors “These the. expressed mandate nevertheless a clear tance, respect flow and power in to reach used order 'be in- building in construction commerce practices certain eliminate which were con- and small establishment dustry, of the sidered public detrimental to the interest. prevention serious demonstrate that doing, Congress so was well aware not free interferences with and substantial peculiarly local characteristics requires con- effective flow of commerce industry, also great of its practices occurring in trol labor of unfair upon interstate commerce.” large as the establish- small as well Apropos situation, industry instant consists. the dis- of which ments ****** member states: senting gain- “It cannot be operations “* said of a considerable * * Moreover, certain artisans number industry of contractors in are trades, including lathers and building individually small; however, rather it like- plasterers, buildings in will not wise cannot be denied that effect on Delay been has not installed. very great; commerce is for obtaining installing glass hinders and total volume of new construction in the completion obstructs the the construc- over United ten billion dollars.” States tion work in which the contractors concluding, the dissenting af- member engaged. delay both therefore Such special further states: “In view of fects the interstate movement of other Congress cern building and supplies building materials and hinders and industry construction production goods obstructs the because industry’s far-reaching considerable and ef- occupants owners commerce commerce, I projected fects believe that it would structures.” policies effectuate the judgment, In our assigned reason powers Board to exercise fully as- the Board for of the com- the dismissal jurisdiction, serting absent a de minimis plaint support no legislative finds flow of in commerce.” history of the 1947 the Act amendments to provision particularly the ef- evaluating directed at criteria The same secondary boycotts labor building and con- unfair fect on commerce industry, little, any, support struction construction approved the cases which the the Board and Board relies. were advanced Shore, An Behalf of for and on legislative extensive review his- the court tory court Build- well as Board v. decisions material to National Labor Relations proper yardstick of Pitts- employed Trades Council de- Construction & Cir., termining Pa., 8 A. pro- 3. 173 F.2d burgh, duced “All of this given activities in court stated: case L.R.2d unduly would prolong opinion up to the conclusion argument adds perhaps purpose. given no in a serve .useful affects the *9 what The legislative history and undoubtedly community affects commerce reveals interstate that Congress fully $10,000,000,000 crip- of a in- that the total effect aware of pling obviously effect on produced by commerce commerce is dustry on interstate secondary boycott appreciable. may and practice very stoppage One small this widely prevalent immediately perceptible have an effect not industry. upon construction But equally is free the flow of whole stream. that Congress stoppages doubt small will have such effect.” many intended that should be eradicated. Supreme Court in Pronouncements Referring Congressional persuasive to the purpose, a of cases are number that the Board dissenting Reynolds employed improper member an states: standard in Board Congress impact “The 80th recognized measuring on commerce result- always power Board had the Union’s juris- to assert activities. The cases
842
is;
may
intrastate,
nei-
impact
often
but
plain
make
is not as
as it
that such
necessary effect is
local
ther matters if
merely by reason of the
certainable
among the
activity.
per A
stifle
commerce
employer’s
or restrain
nature
commerce
Labor states.
If it is interstate
tinent
in National
found
statement
601,
how
Fainblatt,
pinch,
not matter
Relations
306 U.S.
feels the
it does
Board v.
607,
668, 672,
applies the
609,
operation
83 L.
U.S.
local
307
59 S.Ct.
squeeze.”
Ed. 1014: “There are not a
industries
few
which, though con
in the United States
cqurse, that
recognized,
It must be.
units,
relatively
ducted
contribute
small
many
the cases cited and
others
aggregate
volume of interstate
vast
response
'be made were
reference could
Some,
clothing indus
commerce.
like the
to an attack
try,
have had
extensively
unionized and
nature of
of the local
Board because
history
of industrial
long
tragic
so, the
enterprises involved. But even
supposed that Con
strife.
It is not to be
have
many
cases
courts in
these
attempted
regula
gress, in its
nationwide
impact
by which the
yardstick
fashioned
through the re
tion of interstate commerce
per-
determinable,
we
on commerce is
af
moval of the causes of industrial strife
yardstick
same
why
ceive no reason
it,
fecting
intended to exclude such indus
in the instant
should not be utilized
sweep
Act.”
tries from the
measuring
similar cases
pertinent
Equally
the statement
upon com-
boycott had
which the Union’s
National Alliance National Labor
Polish
v.
has
think the Board
We do not
merce.
643, 648,
Board, 322 U.S.
64
Relations
S.
to evaluate such
the unbridled discretion
1196, 1199,
“Congress
Ct.
845 judicial course, review. to limited where a deter- is also established rule has been left to administrative
mination authority must body, delegation con- respected and the administrative held left has clusion untouched. .been authority discretionary
that .the impact on jurisdiction where the to decline Be- relatively insubstantial. remedy policy
cause the relation of com-
peculiarly matter of administrative not to
petence, we have been admonished of the Board’s area
enter the allowable against guard discretion, and that we must narrow danger sliding from the spacious domain the more fines of into law Corp. Phelps Dodge v. National policy. U.S. Relations Labor Here, only L.Ed. 1271. S.Ct. involved, ques- questions
were factual exercise of requiring the policy employing the judgment amp- statutory powers. The Board found — many supported 'by
ly evidence —that proceeding employers involved in the remotely connected
were
case; merely supplied materials employers others; to those involved, operations directly
who were Based essentially character. local in facts, “that Board concluded these effectuate
it would not
policies exercise the Act to Under the circum- proceeding.”
in this concluding I so say
stances cannot discretion, I hence
the Board abused petition. dismiss the CORP. v. AMERICAN
PAN SHIPPING LIMI COLOMBIANA MARITIMA TADA. ZESTA. THE
No. Appeals Court of
United States Fifth Circuit. 23, 1952. Jan. Benjamin Yancey, Orleans, La., New W. Jr., Hall, Taylor, Miami, H. Lewis H.
M. Fla., appellant.