PROVISION HOUSE WORKERS U. L. 274 v. N.L.R.B

PER CURIAM.

The Board did not exceed its jurisdiction, nor did it abuse its discretion in deferring exercise of that jurisdiction pending arbitration. (National Labor Relations Act §§ 1, 10(a), 29 U.S.C. § 151, 160(a); Labor-Management Relations Act § 203(d), 29 U.S.C. § 173(d). Cf. Nabisco, Inc. v. N.L.R.B. (2d Cir. 1973) 479 F.2d 770.) Although the characterization of the dispute as one involving interpretation of a contract, rather than existence of the contract, is not wholly free from doubt, we cannot say that the Board abused its discretion in concluding that contract interpretation was the gravamen of the dispute.

Of course, the Board cannot abdicate its statutory responsibilities by inappropriate deferrals to arbitration. The record before us raises no inference that the Board failed to perform its duties.

Petition denied.