The opinion
COMBS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I would grant enforcement on authority of N.L.R.B. v. Randolph Electric Membership Corporation, 343 F.2d 60 (4th Cir. 1965). In that case the court upheld the Board’s finding that a nonprofit corporation organized under the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation Act was an “employer” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 152 (2). In discussing the scope of review of the Board’s determination, the court observed at page 62:
“To the extent that it has taken into account economic realities as well as the statutory purposes, the Board’s determination is entitled to great respect. [Citing case.] Our function as a reviewing court is limited to determining whether the Board’s conclusion has ‘warrant in the record’ and a ‘reasonable basis in law.’ ”
I think this is the proper standard. Cf. Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 390 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 651 , 19 L.Ed.2d 787 (1968).
Federal law, rather than state legislative or judicial pronouncements, is controlling. N.L.R.B. v. Hearst Publica *316 tions, 322 U.S. 111 , 64 S.Ct. 851 , 88 L.Ed. 1170 (1944); N.L.R.B. v. Randolph Electric Membership Corporation, supra. In Randolph, 343 F.2d at page 64, the court said:
“The fact that North Carolina sees fit to characterize such corporations as 'political subdivisions’ and to accord them certain benefits in respect to state taxation and otherwise * * * is not decisive * * * since their relation to the state and their actual methods of operation do not fit the label given them.”
The Board concluded that the District here involved is not a “political subdivision” of the state because it was neither created directly by the state nor administered by state appointed or publicly elected officials. The Board noted that the District’s operations and services do not differ significantly from those of private utilities whose employees are subject to the Act. The District is completely autonomous in the conduct of its daily affairs; the state exercises no supervision and reserves no power to remove or discipline those responsible for its operations.
Although incorporation of utility districts is authorized by an elaborate statutory scheme, respondent’s actual creation resulted from the direct efforts of local residents desirous of obtaining the benefits of natural gas. The District’s manager testified unequivocally that it is governed by the board of commissioners which adopts rules and regulations necessary to its operation; that the board sets all service rates; that the manager, and ultimately the board, hires and fires employees and determines wages; that neither the employees nor the District is controlled in any way by the county or state government.
It is noted that the furnishing of natural gas is the only service provided by this District and this is not necessarily a governmental function.