Per Curiam. COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 418. Argued April 18, 1960.-Decided May 2, 1960. The National Labor Relations Board found that, during the course of a strike, petitioner unions had violated §8 (b) (1) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act by coercing employees of a telephone company in the exercise of their right to refrain from or discontinue participation in the strike, and it entered an order requiring the unions to cease and desist from restraining or coercing employees of the telephone company "or any other employer" in the exercise of rights guaranteed in § 7 of the Act, though it had not found that the unions had engaged in violations against the employees of any employer other than the telephone company. Held: The order is modified by striking therefrom the words "or any other employer," and, as so modified, the judgment of the Court of Appeals enforcing the order is affirmed. Pp. 479-481. 266 F. 2d 823, modified and affirmed. J. R. Goldthwaite, Jr. argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Al Philip Kane, Charles V. Koons and Thomas S. Adair. Dominick L. Manoli argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Stuart Rothman and Herman M. Levy. PER CURIAM. The Board found that the petitioner unions, during the course of a strike, coerced employees of the Ohio Consolidated Telephone Company in the exercise of their right to refrain from or discontinue participation therein, in violation of § 8 (b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Rela tions Act. It entered an order requiring the unions to cease and desist "from in any manner restraining or coercing employees of Ohio Consolidated Telephone Company or any other employer in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act." (Emphasis supplied.) The Court of Appeals enforced the order after deleting the words "in any manner." 266 F. 2d 823. Because of an asserted conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Labor Board v. Local 926, Int. Union of Operating Engrs., 267 F. 2d 418, we brought the case here. 361 U. S. 893. The only challenge here to the order as so amended is to its validity as extended to "any other employer," as well as the telephone company. Petitioners were not found to have engaged in violations against the employees of any employer other than Ohio Consolidated and we find neither justification nor necessity for extending the coverage of the order generally by the inclusion therein of the phrase "any other employer." "It would seem . . . clear that the authority conferred on the Board to restrain the practice which it has found. . to have [been] committed is not an authority to restrain 1 That section reads in pertinent part: SEC. 8 (b). "It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents "(1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 . . . ." 61 Stat. 141. Section 7 provides: "Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8 (a) (3)." 61 Stat. 140. generally all other unlawful practices which it has neither found to have been pursued nor persuasively to be related to the proven unlawful conduct." Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co., 312 U. S. 426, 433 (1941). See also May Stores Co. v. Labor Board, 326 U. S. 376 (1945). That loaned employees of other affiliated companies were included within the ambit of petitioners' coercive acts plainly does not evidence such a generalized scheme against all telephone employers, for it was only the employment of such employees at the struck plant that brought them within the scope of the unions' activities. We therefore conclude that the inclusion in the order of the words "or any other employer" was unwarranted and the order is modified by striking the same therefrom. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. Modified and affirmed. 2 In the Court of Appeals, the Board sought to justify the breadth of its order by relying on two compromise settlement agreements involving activities of the International and other locals against other employers. Neither the opinion of the Board nor that of the Court of Appeals in this case indicates that any reliance was placed on such agreements, and in this Court the Board disclaims any such reliance. UNITED STATES v. REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 56. Argued January 12-13, 1960.- In a suit by the United States, the District Court found that respondents, who operate mills for the production of iron and related products, had, without first obtaining permits from the Chief of Engineers of the Army providing conditions for their removal, discharged through sewers into a navigable river of the United States industrial waste solids which, on settling out, had substantially reduced the depth of the channel; and it enjoined them from continuing to do so and ordered them to restore the depth of the channel by removing the deposits. Held: On the findings of the District Court, the deposit of industrial solids in the river by respondents created an "obstruction" to the "navigable capacity" of the river forbidden by § 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; they were discharges forbidden by, and not exempt under, § 13; and the District Court was authorized to grant injunctive relief. Pp. 483–493. (a) The discharge into a navigable river of industrial solids. which reduce the depth of the channel creates an "obstruction" to the "navigable capacity" of the river within the meaning of § 10 of the Act. Pp. 486-489. (b) The discharge of such industrial solids suspended in water flowing into a river through sewers is a discharge forbidden by § 13 and is not exempted as "refuse matter . . . flowing from . . . sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid state." Pp. 489-491. (c) The District Court was authorized to grant injunctive relief in a suit by the United States. Pp. 491-492. 264 F. 2d 289, reversed. Solicitor General Rankin argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Morton and Roger P. Marquis. 482 Opinion of the Court. Raymond T. Jackson argued the cause for Interlake Iron Corporation, respondent. With him on the brief were Warren Daane and Henry E. Seyfarth. Paul R. Conaghan argued the cause and filed a brief for Republic Steel Corporation, respondent. Peter A. Dammann and W. S. Bodman filed a brief for International Harvester Company, respondent. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit by the United States to enjoin respondent companies from depositing industrial solids in the Calumet River (which flows out of Lake Michigan and connects eventually with the Mississippi) without first obtaining a permit from the Chief of Engineers of the Army providing conditions for the removal of the deposits and to order and direct them to restore the depth of the channel to 21 feet by removing portions of existing deposits. The District Court found that the Calumet was used by vessels requiring a 21-foot draft, and that that depth has been maintained by the Corps of Engineers. Respondents, who operate mills on the banks of the river for the production of iron and related products, use large quantities of the water from the river, returning it through numerous sewers. The processes they use create industrial waste containing various solids. A substantial quantity of these solids is recovered in settling basins but, according to the findings, many fine particles are discharged into the river and they flocculate into larger units and are deposited in the river bottom. Soundings show a progressive decrease in the depth of the river in the vicinity of respondents' mills. But respondents have refused, since 1951, the demand of the Corps of Engineers |