Compare Oregon Coast Operations Assn., 1955, 113 N.L.R.B. 1338; Long Bell Lumber Co., 1955, 113 N.L.R.B. 1231. Compare N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Co., 1941, 312 U.S. 426, 436, 61 S.Ct. 693, 85 L.Ed 930; N.L.R.B. v. West Texas Utilities Co., 5 Cir. 1941, 119 F.2d 683, 686. Except for the part just quoted, the Board's order will be enforced.
Violations of Sec. 8(1) of the Act were clearly established, and the order in regard thereto will be enforced. N.L.R.B. v. Brown Paper Mill Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 867; N.L.R.B. v. Lane Cotton Mills, 5 Cir., 111 F.2d 814; N.L.R.B. v. West Texas Utilities Co., 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 683. International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L.Ed. 50; N.L.R.B. v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 358, 85 L. Ed. 368; N.L.R.B. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 62 S.Ct. 608, 86 L.Ed. ___, reversing 7 Cir., 116 F.2d 350; N.L.R.B. v. American Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 106 F.2d 61.
7, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126; National Labor Relations Board v. Jones Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S. Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893, 108 A.L.R. 1352; Appalachian Electric Power Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 93 F.2d 985; National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, Inc., 6 Cir., 97 F.2d 13; National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Oil Gas Company, 5 Cir., 98 F.2d 405; Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 98 F.2d 758; National Labor Relations Board v. Union Pacific Stages, Inc., 9 Cir., 99 F.2d 153; Jefferson Electric Company v. National Labor Relations Board et al., 7 Cir., 102 F.2d 949; Cupples Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 106 F.2d 100; National Labor Relations Board v. Walter Stover, etc., 10 Cir., 114 F.2d 513; Martel Mills Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 114 F.2d 624, 633; National Labor Relations Board v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Company, 7 Cir., 116 F.2d 350; National Labor Relations Board v. West Texas Utilities Company, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 683. Petition denied.
The hours are simply lumped together. That being a fact, they cannot recover. The case pressed by counsel for the plaintiffs, National Labor Relations Board v. West Texas Utilities Co. 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 683, 684, dealt with an entirely different statute. The statute, 29 U.S.C.A. ยง 151 et seq., there under consideration related to such activity as "affects interstate commerce."
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones Laughlin Steel Corp. 301 U.S. 1. Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 303 U.S. 453. Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197. National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601. National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford Dyeing Association, 310 U.S. 318. See United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. 315 U.S. 110; A.B. Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111; National Labor Relations Board v. Henry Levaur, Inc. 115 F.2d 105, certiorari denied sub nomine Henry Levaur, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 312 U.S. 682; National Labor Relations Board v. Gulf Public Service Co. 116 F.2d 852; National Labor Relations Board v. Alloy Cast Steel Co. 117 F.2d 302; National Labor Relations Board v. Prettyman, 117 F.2d 786; Pueblo Gas Fuel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 118 F.2d 304; National Labor Relations Board v. West Texas Utilities Co. 119 F.2d 683; National Labor Relations Board v. Schmidt Baking Co. Inc. 122 F.2d 162; National Labor Relations Board v. Tex-O-Kan Flour Mills Co. 122 F.2d 433; National Labor Relations Board v. Niles Fire Brick Co. 124 F.2d 366; Wilson Co. Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 124 F.2d 845; National Labor Relations Board v. Robert S. Green, Inc. 125 F.2d 485; National Labor Relations Board v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. 133 F.2d 295; National Labor Relations Board v. J.L. Hudson Co. 135 F.2d 380. The commission relies upon Davega-City Radio, Inc. v. State Labor Relations Board, 281 N.Y. 13, Wisconsin Labor Relations Board v. Fred Rueping Leather Co. 228 Wis. 473, and Allen-Bradley Local No. 1111 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 237 Wis. 164, affirmed 315 U.S. 740.
However, it is not material whether this construction of the expression is correct, since Wills' demotion and discharge do not form the basis of the suit. In this connection appellant asserts that "even the National Labor Relations Board found Wills guilty of lack of co-operation in the performance of his duties on the switch-board" and that the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, National Labor Relations Board v. West Texas Utilities Co., 119 F.2d 683, "determined that appellant committed no wrong in removing Wills from the switch-board and from later discharging him." It is not even contended that there is any record showing of these assertions, and manifestly they cannot be considered on this appeal.