National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
96 F.2d 948
7th Cir.
1938
Check Treatment

*1 9á8' reading of naturally we A resent. attempt- opinion court will- that the show sup- arguments ed to state facts They might plaintiff’s ported position. per- controlling and well have been suasive, least, use for the lia- aggregate “in shall

words no event more bility Surety one for principal during defaults of the suretyship under years more to, extended referred bond hereinabove set specifically exceed the amount words, bond.” in said forth argu- us, outweighed facts seemed ments contrary conclusion pointing lia- maximum of to hold the and caused us $25,000. bility bond each mo- rehearing and the for petition are both modification for tion Counsel, Fahy, Charles Gen. Denied. Watts, Robert B. Counsel, Gen. Associate son, Thomas I. Emer- Owsley Vose, Knapp, Laurence A. C., petitioner. Washington, D. for all ’ Reed, Pa., Pittsburgh, Earl F. Otto 111., Jaburek, Chicago, C. M. A. Thorp, Jr., Laughlin, Jr., Charles E. John Hewitt, Thorp, Bostwick, Reed .& C. Armstrong, Pa., Pittsburgh, re- BOARD RELATIONS LABOR NATIONAL spondent. & ENAMELING v. COLUMBIAN Shafer, Haute, Ind., Paul R. Terre CO., Inc. STAMPING interveners. No. 6324. EVANS, SPARKS, Before and TREA- Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Circuit Court NOR, Judges. Circuit April 28, 1938.

EVANS, Judge. Circuit the enforcement of Petitioner seeks -of the National order directing respondent company to Board employees, who theretofore reinstate gone replaced strike and had been on a The order1 of employees. other finding the com- predicated on a prac- guilty of unfair

pany had pursuant findings section of law and conclusions basis of tbe of fact and “On tlie 160(c)], (c) tbe Na- [29 Relations Act U.S.C.A. tbe National Labor subdivision respondent, hereby tbe Enamel- tbe Columbian Relations Board orders tional Labor ing following action, agents, Stamping Company, take its & officers policies the Act: effectuate the which tbe Board finds will employed production Discharge employment who were from its “1. July 22, 1935, individuals who were so so created reinstate to vacancies on employment substantially equivalent employed elsewhere and have not since received place for reinstatement as and list to be called of such individuals the remainder when their labor needed. paragraph order, Upon required reinstating of this cease “2. Stamping bargain collectively Enameling refusing Em- Mill and desist from ployees representative production of hours exclusive Union No. 19694 ployed by respect pay, wages, employment, and other rates employment. conditions of day from Board on or before thirtieth “3. File with the National Labor Relations setting writing report Order, in detail manner forth the date of service and foregoing requirements.” complied form in which it has

94<j were ployed persons, of whom bargain the about 600 tices; namely, refusal to employees who production and its maintenance majority of represented a union which membership the Enamel- eligible to were employees. Union, Employees ing Stamping Mill to been hired employees who The eligible No. 19694. of the About 485 intervened and replace strikers have the employees belonged union. The to the appear separately. 1935; began the Na- March the The conflict became effec- tional Labor protracted and been bitter. union has tive, 5, 1935; specific day July find it nec- We issues. It covers several alleged to have re- company is which the facts somewhat in de- essary to state the 1935. bargain July fused to thorough understanding of give to tail its respondent and agreement between case. expired July 14, year for a ployees ran importance Enameling Because of the The Columbian The Facts: presentation of the succes- corpo- chronological Company, an Indiana Stamping conflict, Haute, Indiana, steps set forth we them ration, Terre sive this located at in detail. sells enamelware. It em- manufactures Company arbitrate, year, differe July future and Union contracted to Company ef labor officials nces.† first to contract but Fed. at foctcd. affiliate). By September, 1934, (A. July Union 19694 of L. formed F. production employees were members. system. -requested Aug. to institute “check-off” 'Union Seale Com. Co. 1934 1934 sending employees setting Company forth letters to all started circular October position re conflict. system Company employees would not use be- it “check-off” notified Oet. illegal assignments pay it unless new cause believed it be to every days. made Enameling Stamping Company, Its Inc. and †Labor Contract Columbian Employees. Regional Indianapolis July meeting held in offices Labor Board on “At presided agreed Chairman, Beckner, Earl to over Dr. above R. following contract: Seniority prevail throughout plant. “(1) In shall it becomes the event employee upon necessary pany’s employees, to reduce the force of the last entered Com- furloughed. payroll employee No bo shall be the first be new shall furloughed employed recalling until all been returned to work. have furloughed employees duty, point employee of service shall be applied first the oldest employee duty. seniority to be returned to rule be on the basis de- shall partments plant. within Manage- “(2) Employees promoted upon competency. of either sex will be the basis of right competency. ment shall have the to determine against “(3) mem- No been or will of his or her bo discriminated because have bership non-membership in, or labor union affiliation with non-affiliation with organization. every rest-period “(4) rest-period granted four A be shall female laborers of ten minutes for to all other performed. departments apply hours of labor This is where ** * practiced. . is now agree- “(5) party modify When either he shall to this terminate or desires to ment, give days thirty party in advance of written notice least to the other such termination. “(6) necessary employment given, In the event that it becomes amount to reduce the management agrees spread among employees. Management available work lay necessary point reserves the to determine at off it becomes what spread rather than the work. Any “(7) employee hearing given Company dismissed from the service shall be days hearing within dismissal, by representatives three from date of to be conducted employee management. employee and the Should be determined involved has unjustly dismissed, duty paid such restored to for time lost. “(8) Management proper provide factory. will endeavor to ventilation in the “(9) “(10) departments privi- representing A in the various shall be committee leged respective any grievance departments up arise in their take Failing adjust charge department. grievance, foreman in such committee of said permitted Department Superintendent, from him if nec- to refer the to t-he matter essary finally Manager Company. Superintendent the General Plant dispute arising satisfactory “In of a under this contract ease in which a settlement composed reaehed, cannot be to a committee of arbitration shall be referred persons persons Union, Management, of two and fifth two selected selected Company negotiate, (postponed Nov. notified union Oct. 26). Nov. Taylor Company (Fed. man) Mr. and Scale met with Com. Nov. Company’s representative shop. refused; asked for closed asked for pay, it. said not warrant *3 increase conditions did 20% agree presented Company: Company 4, (1) Com. 1935 Scale demands to Jan. lay suspended by Company refused; (2) off member union. shop. asked closed subjects. 5, on 1935 for arbitration these Feb. Union asked company Meeting 7, 8, and union. Feb. Feb. 1935 1935 between stating Company union, employees, proposals of Jan. letter sent etc. purview not 4 within arbitration they Company 9, did not to out circular letters because Feb. 1935 Union wrote send affairs, know want other non-members foremen to of their not and company and deal with scale committee. asked that union, citing Company 19, letter to and section 7 Feb. 1935 circular A., (a). I. R. 15 U.S.C.A. N. Meeting Company Company 5, 1935 between and Union. Mar. 5, and it it letters first told Scale would show all circular Mar. Com. objections let it state thereto. proposals. Company Taylor 11, 17, Com., met Mar. Mar. and Mr. to discuss Jan. 4 1935 1935 Union Scale containing Company’s Company sent a letter resolutions —recited agree proposals; failure to to arbitrate re said would work joined anyone with who have union and did not. production employees were members of Union. 485 Union 1935 1935 Mar. and 22, to call all members of union struck. moved Mar. designated time, majority union 22, Since" this of units of have 'Mar. agent. as collective Picketing Company’s plant March ex- 23-July 23, closed. since Mar. during pickets. cept unruly of martial Sometimes 50 time law. Sometimes who caused much destruction. crowds Dept, of Labor from tried settle strike. He stated Conciliator March company shop and refused conciliator- was closed and wanted union quit. building indefinitely. Company closed announced 1935 1935 Mar. May company requested and between the Mayor conference Haute Terre ' meeting stating Company because it uselessness refused union. provided. shop and so have closed - May Company to return to- individuals foreman solicited 20 the May After many did. and work willing saying newspaper Company in Terre Haute advertised June taking recognition agreement” operate open union “without to back indiscriminately. men non-union union and meeting. asked Committee Scale June June representatives both sides. 1935 Conference '29 effective. U.S.C.A. § Act became July seq. et reopen interfered; shop made-plans Company 40 men. and union July 19, 1935 plant by police. accompanied into police protest included of use of called labor strike July General 22, 1935 day. July 15,000 Haute; On next there militia terminated Terre persons thrown; plant and1 missiles were called around picketing proclaimed and forbidden. martial law plant positions, Company reopened some union July and filled 23, 1935 old. By By Aug. 19, 190 old men. returned. some new company Sept. 1935, full had force. Company Department July conciliators conferred of Labor Two days union, they agreed and several later to confer changed mind, and to confer further. 14, 1934, is to be . party tently binding upon person [*] “In “(12) “It “(11) [**] [*] is drafting omitted. to be selected This contract shall run for Wherever appended agreed both contract, the, thereto. possible above clause be parties contract which was clause of its by pending to this contract. follows: management four, decision ” the contract who shall period one clause which hereby signed There of one is on reach a Committee of Arbitration. limit the hours of work to made a July originally year 14th, 1934, be no decision from part drafted date, stoppage which shall be final and agreed original is, to was inadver- signed work representatives eight until contract July per day. July and; 14,. merce, exist, thereby if found bur- of law are: issues dened. constitutionality (1) The of the Nation- Act, al Labor Relations 29 U.S.C.A. § seq. et (3) the Board’s order valid. Whether so, sup- If can be enforced to the (2) Whether there is evidence whether intervenors, port finding present em- the Board’s of unfair labor detriment of the practices, ployees. if so interstate com- whether CONTENTIONS AND COUNTER-CONTENTIONS.

Respondent’s Petitioner’s Contentions. Contentions. *4 1) 1) (Na- act has been held constitutional act is The tional Laughlin unconstitutional. Labor Relations Bd. v. Jones & Corp., 1, Steel 301 57 S.Ct. U.S. 893, 1352, 108 A.L.R. and 81 L.Bd. cases.) other Majority 2) man- 2) material used in the of raw Interstate commerce is not involved be- states; and comes from 20 ufacture cause 85% both raw materials and finished shipped product 47 products Company’s to is of manufactured remain at rest in the states; eight place and railroads three interstate and for several months before after shipment interstate truckers used. interstate tinuity and therefore the con- shipment in interstate commerce is broken. Picketing Company August 4, 1935 resumed. bargain collectively Company did not Sept. refused to with union. 1935 asking for conference. answer letters of Union Sept. supra.) (Same as 3935 occurrence Oct. striking company employees bht to take hack union asked A official 1935 Oct. sign they application company for em- and told official ployment. ' regional complaint was Union director 1935 filed Oct. N; practices engaging L. forbidden R. A. in unfair labor complaint against Company unfair acts section for issued Nov. 158(1,5), (7), (1) (5) (6) and §§ and and section 2 U.S.C.A. 152(6, 7). alleging: unconstitutional, Company (b) (a) Act was Com- filed answer Dec. Allegations commerce; (c) pany engaged do in interstate was not (d) July charge practices; and not of unfair labor constitute striking Company gave opportunity August, return contrary many did; (e) to labor made demands Union although shop arbitration such for closed demanded in begun examiner, and closed December Trial Board before board labor Dec. proceeding 16, 14, before it for transferred determination. 1935 1936 Order of Board 1937 Board filed ordered Dec. for Feb. July reinstatement. petition for enforcement of order. court provisions read as follows: practice 8(1,5), 158(1,5): an “It be an unfair labor 29 U.S.C.A. § Section employer— guar- restrain, with, “(1) in the or coerce exercise of interfere To title]. of this section anteed IT57 subject collectively representatives employees, bargain “(5) his To refuse to [159(a) provisions title].” of section provides: § 29 U.S.C.A. Section “Employees organ- right form, join, self-organization, or assist labor shall have through representatives choosing, bargain collectively izations, en- own of their bargaining purpose gage other mutual aid collective or in concerted activities for protection.” or provides: 159(a), (a), 29 Section 9 § U.S.C.A. designated “Representatives purposes for the of collective or selected purposes, majority representatives appropriate for such shall be exclusive a unit bargain- purposes unit for the of collective of all the in such employ- employment, ing respect pay, wages, conditions or other hours of rates employee group any Provided, shall have the individual That ment: grievances employer.” any present to their time to * * * any term‘employee’ 152(3): shall include (3), in- “The Section U.S.C.A. with, any consequence of, or in current connection work has ceased dividual whose practice, and who has not obtained other unfair labor because ”* * * substantially equivalent employment. regular and ‘ Respondent's Petitioner's Contentions. Contentions. things 3) demanding 3) Union closed chinery than have been use- was other Further conferences would demanding pay shop, ma- 2 hour when union was less because all that was a asking shop, Union was broke down. closed operate. conferences, indicative- not so conciliatory of fact mood. passed 4) applicable, 4) strike need not The act was after the The act ápplic inapplicable; furthermore, retroactively here therefore the strike was an construed illegal one because there to meet and con able because the refusal fer occurred on being July agreement, thereafter, 22 and was an arbitration illegal passage act, strike strike violation and the com after the wage lationship employment agreement, arbitrate, pany the re- and the had refused agreement only provided arbitration there should be no strike The arbitration a matter terminated. con- while provided pending be no Ar should the Committee* of tract there before bitratiop. . terminate strikes. A does relationship employer-employee (Cit ing Case, Michaelson v. the Michaelson Chicago, P., M. & R. S. ex St. O. U. rel. 940). Co., Cir., The National 291 F. applicable *5 held has Labor Act been the strike occurred prior cases two where Jeffery-DeWitt passage. Insulator -to its Board, 4 v. National Labor Relations Co. 139, 948, Cir., 134, 91 112 A.L.R. F.2d 55, denied, 18, 82 Oct. 58 S.Ct. L. cer. —; Case, Na Lumber Ed. Co. Carlisle Lum Rel. Board v. Carlisle tional Labor ber on pending Co., Cir., 138, now 9 94 F.2d application Supreme for certiorari Court, filed Mar. 30. Court, Supreme petitioner’s that view argument of this case Subsequent in interstate com- engaged Supreme decisions announced Court 6 ***4 merce. which have narrowed following cases through the final determination the issues ordinarily may also be assumed that It legal controverted previously were of what al- employer-employee of exists status questions. pas- before the though the strike occurred pur- and is assumed It be sage Labor Relations National Labor the National poses of case that this passage. and continued after exercise of authorized Act is an Relations however, conclusions, do not valid, and Congress and is by power a question. We have or solve our meet thereby ordinari- does on strike one out parties (the case where relation employer-employee interrupt ly by a written employees) bound themselves words, In other existing. previously subject: agreement on such, not brok- employee, status authorities (Some by satisfactory strike. en which case in “In court, including those holding, so dispute arising under this settlement of margin.5 ) in the collected reached, such cannot be contract of arbitra- discussion, committee referred to a accept shall without We persons of two selected composed the recent tion decisions clear seems Penn, Greyhound 577, Lines, Inc., 4 82 L. 58 S.Ct. Relations Board v. National Grey 1938; February 28, v. Pacific —, National decided Ed. hound February 1938; 28, —, Lines, Inc., 577, Lauf v. Shin decided 58 82 L.Ed. S.Ct. February 1938; 28, 578, —, Fruit Co., and Santa Cruz decided 58 82 L.Ed. & S.Ct. ner —, 656, Pkg. March Board, 58 82 L.Ed. decided S.Ct. National Labor Co. v. 28, 1938. Cir., Co., Chicago, P., 5 F. & O. R. 291 ex rel. St. M. United States Michaelson v. 451; grounds (reversed 35 A.L.R. 69 L.Ed. on other in 266 U.S. S.Ct. 315; Cir., Co., L.R.A.,N.S., Tri 166 7 Allis-Chalmers F. v. Iron Molders’ Union 728; Foundries, Cir., Rela City Nat. Labor Steel 238 F. v. American Council Trades 13, 1937; Co., Cir., decided December 94 F.2d Lumber v. tions Board Jeffery-DeWitt Carlisle Board, Cir., 91 F.2d 134. v. National Labor Relations Insulator Co. Exchange Commission, 82 L. 58 S.Ct. v. & Bond & Share Co. Securities Electric Pkg. 1938; National Labor Rela Labor Rela Co. v. —, Santa Cruz Fruit March Ed. decided 1938; —, March decided 82 L.Ed. S.Ct. tions Laughlin Corp., L.Ed. 57 S.Ct. Steel U.S. tions Board v. Jones A.L.R. may re- rights of others Intolerance of selected persons Management, two sult. he selected Union, person to and fifth decision four, reach a occurs, who in- parties deeply soAs often upon both binding interests, final and terested, shall be prejudiced by their be no There contract. parties red, seeing this suffer from the delusion party to this stoppage of work right; that so strength numerical measures by the Commit- contract, pending decision merits of many, sincerely convinced of Alas, cause, Arbitration.” such wrong. tee of their cannot phase of er- another an attitude is but is in view It right. might philosophy makes roneous question arises. parties our major premise any syllogism, As group of is the status of What only leads erroneous conclusions a definite face of such ployees who in the catastrophic results. Is employment? agreement left their through speaks When the state or nation par- applicable to estoppel not doctrine legislation Supreme ap- Court which the Is maxim agreement? an to such ties valid, proves accept we must it as into a court comes equity that one who expression public policy which we are hands, clean equity must come spirit willingly to enforce and in the of its ? applicable enactment. The National Labor Relations and reas- more secure No foundation legislation. Act is was enacted aft- It protective suring or more er the strikers had withdrawn their serv- capital can be found than both labor words, In other the time ices. contracts, not violative that reasonable of went on strike there was in force no Na- respected by the public policy, should be tional Labor Relations Act and the em- ployees pledged their words and their who agree- *6 acted the face of their grope integrity to abide We their terms. stoppage no of work ment—-“There by be further into only in darkness trek the party contract, pending to this de- confusion and lost landmarks wilderness of cision the Committee of Arbitration.” light. sight Prog- if we ress lies of this beacon lose agreement, In the face of only respect in for one’s strikers, is, they em- was there an Respect support of for and of the cause la- ployer-employee relationship existing, when respect for bor follows labor’s its contract. they quit em- work? Did the status of through Bill Rights The same of which ployer-employee labor, as them after gives just protection continue to one section to they quit? through protects just section the another rights of will re- Overriding others. question the answer this in We must Bill of sult Rights. the overthrow of the entire in say They estopped negative. are to specific agreement their their of violation applying In the ignored to may observations be them to important keep in Moreover, instant case it mind repudiated. they no have stand- imposed. limitations we equity which have a of to ask relief in the ing in court specified. Only agreements reasonable are agreement which was rea- face of sonable, solemn a pub- Not statute or violative rule deliberately they and which of of necessity. are policy lic is another breached. important all limitations to be observed and agreement they which had entered The good for several reasons. single year. In three months ran for a into more, only have ended. did Not We are not blind to the that the fact during employees agree not to strike purpose governmental activity of in labor arbi- they agreed to submit their nearly year, but equally matters is treat Such an arbitration. possible conditions; differences to existing tratable agreement promotive of the best inter- dealings Surely reasonable whip parties. no former hold the both hand to the of ests or say it was unreasonable un- great disadvantage person of the latter when the Surely, duress. indicative of are and unable to act fair numerous and troublesome collectively; perplexing of hence collective is solution attempted set- of the arising out questions can fail to observe that authorized. Nor we disputes, the can labor of size, tlement armies in large groups, where veritable negotia- of principle the basis adopt no possible collectively there is acting, conduct, sound, subsequent more or of tions lurking of mass drives. danger result (b) agreements, safe, wage Reasonable contracts of labor and sane than repre- ployment, of not violative statute understandings authorized made period public compensa- of policy, which deal with sentatives, and reasonable re- respected. working tion and be conditions must application, must their spected by employers entering into such that we not mean This conclusion does agreements. re- approve uphold refusal rigidly con- request plain duty Courts have the of spondent to meet enforcing legal propositions. In be negotiationsTooking both these into ciliators and enter disputes way public after no other can welfare the settlement towards promoted Re- employment. quit labor and employees had spondent’s employees were their both capital protected. union- largely respondent, when re- Act, ized. Under disposing of this case we are con- duty to moral negotiate, a quested by single fronted question. The National Board v. do National Labor so. held former that the Corp., 301 U.S. Laughlin Steel respondent, Jones who on a went 108 A.L.R. 81 L.Ed. S.Ct. strike before the enactment of Act in unwise friendly ear to Instead it leant a agreement of their violation reasonable sympathy wholly out counsel strike, submit differences to their cap- settle legislation designed avoid arbitration, were entitled to invoke aid refusal in its disputes. erred It ital-labor equity a court to secure reinstatement request of ignore thé respect that law and they voluntarily of the contract terminated. of, task burdensome charged those working petitioner holding In so erred. of what peaceful solution out holding is, The course, this case controversy. There is had become bitter particular restricted to the facts in this find we can explanation which no little or case which are: defiant, open refusal, -an save for their withdrawal the land. flouting of the law before the National Labor was enacted. freely conceded that It must be (b) had a valid short had, prior to work. It quit has wage agreement during time Rela- the enactment agreed not to strike but to submit differ- That state- strike. Act, right to tions the, ar- growing ences out *7 is ele- abstract law in the of the ment- bitration. however, has, a few limita- mentary. It (c) employees ex- labor has working is where ceased in of them One tions. not wage agreement limited time to the face of their its a disputes with pressly agreed for provision arbitration. anti-strike and at a when to submit time strike but there nowas Federal Labor in force. Act the Na- of When, passage the before Act, quit em- labor It is needless to add not re- that we are Relations tional Labor specific pass upon, upon a quired pass of such nor do we face ployment in the in con- in of time case where reasonable said relevant agreement, statutory law of factors are absent. violative and not ditions estopped it- labor policy, then -public of nor petitioner’s petition It follows that the employ- of its the call termination self to sought of enforcement for the order must standing in More, had it no ment, a strike. denied. be and it is growing equity enforce a court relationship employer-employee out of its SPARKS, Judge. concur Circuit I m termina- through repudiated thus it the conclusion. extent To the contract. that of its tion right if a For limited. strike is it non-recognizable, is unenforceable TREANOR, Judge Circuit (dissenting). right. hardly called can correctly opinion If understand I the propositions which are two the There majority, upon of the decision rests it employees the employers of labor must assumption employees that the of re- the spondent respect: recognize and ju- not the invoke of the National Labor risdiction Relations The National employees part the aforesaid had of the Board because and constitutes a laws is valid of agree- on a strike in violation of provisions apply gone land. the Its respond- employees the engaged between employers who in ment ent interstate company. commerce. of the pre- chronological Labor from Relations Act the It dear the relationship steps employee-employer the con- sentation of the successive in still ex- isted when alleged the employees prac- re- unfair labor troversy occurred; tices dispute spondent company relationship, ex- a labor that that purposes for of jurisdiction employees and their em- of the National isted between the Labor Relations continued ployer, exist and that a result up including to and the date of the Granting filing that struck. contract, complaint in which charged it was employees, existing of an that view upon engaging was in unfair labor unjustifiable demands making practices. employer, there that the fact remains also, dispute; was labor the fact was that The order of the National Labor Rela- employer to arbitra- refused to submit predicated tions upon Board was the find- employees’ questions raised tion the ing respondent company that the had been employer was demands. It practices, of unfair labor in that guilty cov- claiming the demands correct bargain collectively with included ered matters which were representatives employees. There agreement between existing arbitration some support was evidence finding this employees. employer and But at and this court cannot disturb it. On the ap- was of arbitration rate no committee finding basis of such the Board is expressly strike, prior and the clause pointed authorized the act take “to such affirm- agreement, which it is assumed that action, including ative reinstatement of em- provides by striking, violated as, ployees with or pay, without back will work stoppage shall be no “there policies” effectuate the of the act. contract, pending party to deci- this duty It was the Arbitration.” of the National Labor sion Committee Relations to consider the conduct of question for Court to decide company for order of the National is whether the purpose of determining whether or not statutory within Board was its request for collective authority Rela- under the National Labor faith; in good made for it would seem respondent’s Act. The conduct tions provisions under even the strict Board to con- a fact charged act that an could be determining the ultimate fact of sider practices labor refusing unfair to bar- practice by employer; labor unfair gain collectively employees, his if pre- in the cause my opinion our decision facts disclosed that the were not petition of the Board for en- by the sented seeking collective bargaining good in a order does not turn on the forcement adjust disputes. Also, faith effort wrongfulness of the strike rightfulness order of the pro- since the Board did not employees. respondent’s pay, for back is a vide in- reasonable which arose out The situation *8 ference that the Labor Board attributed the demands, and the refusal of the employees’ interruption employment, part least, to, accede or to ar- improper striking conduct demands, clearly bitrate, constituted ployees. dispute” within the definition of “labor U.S.C.A., 152(9) in section of 29 that term view the recent decisions of the Supreme Act. And defining power Court term by definition the “shall National Labor Relations Board since under the act, whose work has opinion individual I am of the include the law consequence of, petitioner, in connec- ceased Court with, dispute,” grant petition current should tion enforcement purposes necessarily follows order of supra. note See (9): 29 U.S.O.A. § Title * * *, in sections 151 to used 166 of “When “(9) this title dispute’ any controversy concerning terms, term ‘labor includes tenure or employment, concerning representation persons conditions negotiating, the association or fixing, maintaining, changing, seeking arrange terms or conditions of regardless employment, disputants proximate of whether in the stand relation of em- employee.” ployer and (3). Title 29 U.S.O.A. § (c). Title U.S.C.A.