NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

v.

WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC CO.

PER CURIAM.

On this petition by the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of an order against Western Massachusetts Electric Company (49 Stat. 454, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160) the only substantial question presented, in view of the stipulation executed by respondent, is whether, on the undisputed facts, the company is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board. The order, dated November 29, 1940, is copied in the footnote.1

We deem it unnecessary to set forth in detail the subsidiary facts as found by the Board. Its conclusions concerning the company’s relation to interstate commerce are as follows:

“It is clear from the findings above (1) that the Company receives from outside Massachusetts a large quantity of the materials, supplies, equipment used by it in its operations, (2) that the Company purchases' electrical energy which originates outside Massachusetts, (3) that a large area in Massachusetts is primarily dependent upon the Company for the generation, transmission, and distribution of electrical energy and that within such area instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including a railroad, telegraph and telephone companies, a radio broadcasting station, and a post office, as well as manufacturers who sell products in interstate commerce, use and are dependent upon electrical energy supplied by the Company. A cessation or interruption of the Company’s business, such as would tend to accompany labor disputes between the Company and its employees (1) would affect the flow of electrical energy and a large quantity of other commodities received by the Company in interstate commerce ; and (2) would burden and obstruct not only the operations of various instrumentalities of interstate transportation and communication but also the operation of the businesses served by the Company with power which manufacture and ship commodities in interstate commerce.”

No novel point is raised. Under the decided cases, it can no longer be doubted that the National Labor Relations Act is applicable to the respondent. Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126; Southern Colorado Power Co. v. Na*457tional Labor Relations Board, 10 Cir., 111 F.2d 539; Consumers Power Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 6 Cir., 113 F.2d 38; Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 115 F.2d 414; National Labor Relations Board v. Gulf Public Service Co., 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 852; Pueblo Gas & Fuel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 304.

The jurisdiction of the Board is not defeated by the fact that some of the companies dependent uj)on respondent for power might be able to resort to makeshift arrangements or to substituted sotirces of power so as to minimize any interruptions of commerce that might result from labor difficulties between respondent and its employees. National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford Dyeing Association, 310 U.S. 318, 326, 60 S.Ct. 918, 84 L.Ed. 1226; National Labor Relations Board v. Henry Levaur, Inc., 1 Cir., 115 F.2d 105, 109; Pueblo Gas & Fuel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 304, 306.

Since the only specific unfair labor practice found by the Board was the refusal of respondent upon request to bargain collectively with the union duly chosen by a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit, the Board consents to a modification of its general cease and desist order in paragraph 1(b), so as to conform to the modification prescribed by the Supreme Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Express Publishing Co., 61 S.Ct. 693, 701, 85 L.Ed. -. It is urged by respondent that paragraph 1(b) should be struck out altogether, but we see no justification for modifying the order to any greater extent than was done in the Express Publishing Co. case. Paragraph 1(b) will be modified to read as follows:

“(b) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local #761, to bargain collectively with the respondent Western Massachusetts Electric Company, Greenfield, Massachusetts.”

A decree will be entered enforcing the order of the Board with the modification of paragraph 1(b) as above indicated.