he shall at any time in the future commit some new violation unlike and unrelated to that with which he was originally charged. This Court will strike from an injunction decree restraints upon the commission of unlawful acts which are thus dissociated from those which a defendant has committed. Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 200 U. S. 361, 404, and see under the National Labor Relations Act, National Labor Relations Board v. Swift & Co., 108 F. 2d 988.

It is a salutary principle that when one has been found to have committed acts in violation of a law he may be restrained from committing other related unlawful acts. But we think that, without sacrifice of that principle, the National Labor Relations Act does not contemplate that an employer who has unlawfully refused to bargain with his employees shall for the indefinite future, conduct his labor relations at the peril of a summons for contempt on the Board's allegation, for example, that he has discriminated against a labor union in the discharge of an employee, or because his supervisory employees have advised other employees not to join a union. See e. g., H. J. Heinz Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U. S. 514.

Having found the acts which constitute the unfair labor practice the Board is free to restrain the practice and other like or related unlawful acts. But as the Court has held in the case of the Federal Trade Commission, see Federal Trade Comm'n v. Beech-Nut Co., supra, 455, an order not so related should be appropriately restricted on review. The breadth of the order, like the injunction of a court, must depend upon the circumstances of each case, the purpose being to prevent violations, the threat of which in the future is indicated because of their similarity or relation to those unlawful acts which the Board has found to have been committed

426

Opinion of the Court.

by the employer in the past. See United States v. TransMissouri Freight Assn., 166 U. S. 290, 308, 309; Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 77; Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, 281 U. S. 548; Local 167 v. United States, 291 U. S. 293; Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, 300 U. S. 515, 541, 543, 544. We hold only that the National Labor Relations Act does not give the Board an authority, which courts cannot rightly exercise, to enjoin violations of all the provisions of the statute merely because the violation of one has been found. To justify an order restraining other violations it must appear that they bear some resemblance to that which the employer has committed or that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of his conduct in the past. That justification is lacking here. To require it is no more onerous or embarrassing to the Board than to a court. And since we are in a field where subtleties of conduct may play no small part, it is appropriate to add that an order of the Board, like the injunction of a court, is not to be evaded by indirections or formal observances which in fact defy it. After an order to bargain collectively in good faith, for example, discriminatory discharge of union members may so affect the bargaining process as to establish a violation of the order.

The Board places strong reliance on National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U. S. 240, and on Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, supra, 555, 567, 568, 571, and Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, supra, 543, 544. In those cases the cease and desist order and the injunctions were substantially like paragraph 1(b) of the Board's order in the present case. But in them the unfair labor practices did not appear to be isolated acts in violation of the right of self-organization, like the refusal

to bargain here, but the record disclosed persistent attempts by varying methods to interfere with the right of self-organization in circumstances from which the Board or the court found or could have found the threat of continuing and varying efforts to attain the same end in the future.

An appropriate order in the circumstances of the present case would go no further than to restrain respondent from any refusal to bargain and from any other acts in any manner interfering with the Guild's efforts to negotiate. So far as respondent's past conduct may be thought to have had any effect on the rights guaranteed by § 7, such consequences would be effectively prevented by the prohibition of such an order without drawing it so broadly as to forbid all other unrelated unfair labor practices.

Only a word need be said of that part of the Board's order requiring the posting of notices. We have often held that the posting of notices advising the employees of the Board's order and announcing the readiness of the employer to obey it is within the authority conferred on the Board by § 10(c) of the Act "to take such affirmative action. . . as will effectuate the policies" of the Act. See National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U. S. 261, 268; H. J. Heinz Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, supra.

But respondent argues that the authority of the Board does not extend to the requirement, such as was made in this case, that the employer confess violation of the Act by a published announcement that he will "cease and desist" from violating it. See, National Labor Relations Board v. Abell Co., 97 F. 2d 951; Burlington Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 104 F. 2d 736; Swift & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F. 2d 87; Art Metals Construction Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 110 F. 2d 148, 151, 152; Hartsell Mills Co. v. Na

Since

tional Labor Relations Board, 111 F. 2d 291, 293. the Board has changed its practice and now provides in all orders that the employers' notices shall state "that he will not engage in the conduct from which he is ordered to cease and desist" it consents that the present order be modified accordingly.

What we have said requires a reversal of the judgment below and the reëstablishment of the Board's order with the following exceptions:

Paragraph 1 (b) of the order will be modified so as to require only that respondent shall cease and desist from "In any manner interfering with the efforts of the Guild to bargain collectively with Express Publishing Company, San Antonio, Texas."

Paragraph 2 (b) of the order will be modified by striking from it the words "will cease and desist as aforesaid", and substituting for them the words "will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist as aforesaid."

Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS:

I think the cease and desist order should be enforced in full.

Respondent did not object in its answer to the Board's petition before the Circuit Court of Appeals to that portion of the Board's order which the Court now modifies. So far as the briefs disclose it did not make any such objection in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Nor did respondent question the propriety of that provision of the order or challenge the power of the Board to make it either in its brief or in its oral argument here. Any controversy on that issue before this Court is therefore not attributable to respondent. For on the record before us

Opinion of Douglas, J.

312 U.S.

it must be assumed that respondent wholly acquiesces in that phase of the Board's action. In that posture of the case, it is plain this Court will not customarily raise sua sponte objections which respondent did not choose to make. We are, of course, asked to enforce an order of the Board. And I suppose we might refuse to enforce provisions of such an order which are patently ultra vires, even though the other party raises no objection but acquiesces in them. But, in my view, this provision of the order is not beyond the power of the Board.

The order as modified restrains respondent from interfering in any manner "with the efforts of the Guild to bargain collectively" with it. But respondent is not restrained from interfering with the employees in the exercise of their rights (a) to self-organization, (b) to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or (c) to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. These deletions represent the loss of substantial sanctions-sanctions which the expert administrative agency may well have concluded are basic and essential for protection of the right which this very union has won.

Take the case where an employer is playing ducks and drakes with the National Labor Relations Act. He pays mere lip service to the requirements of the Act while intent on blocking in his plant any effective union action. If that is a faithful representation of his attitude, the mandate of the Act might be wholly frustrated or its enforcement needlessly delayed were the Board merely to order him to cease and desist from interfering "with the efforts" of the union "to bargain collectively." That, without more, might well be wholly ineffective, or so the Board in its discretion might conclude. In fact, it might even be an open invitation to an employer intent on evasion of the spirit and letter of the Act to resort to devious routes to the same end. Employees are dropped-per