TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 87
not "capable of standmg on an independent footing and performing
the function of a bargaining representative in fact "
Illustrative of the "convincing internal evidence" of the employer's
dominating role in this council were (1) the very form and structure
of the council, with its specific provisions, among °the's, for the foreman's
advance knowledge before an employee could take a matter up
with a council representative, (2) management representatives' participation
in the vote before a matter could be established as a council
item for presentation to management, and their participation in discussing
and determining the ment of such item, (3) limitation of the
council's authority to merely making iecommendations to management
ith final determination and execution vested in management, and (4)
the company's power to cause councilmen elected by the employees to
lose their elected status by reorganization or transfer 81 Considered as
background particularizing the existing situation was testimony indicating
the considerable degree to which council members m fact
submitted to management domination, although.. they preferred to
label it as matters of courtesy and cooperation In addition, the i ecord
also showed that the council had no funds, treasury, or income,
and the employer furnished it printing, duplicating, and typing service,
office space, office furniture, and telephone se" vice, and paid employees
their regular rate nhile engaged in council business The
Board, in holding the council dominated as well as unlawfully assisted
and supported by the employer, stated as follows
The objective of Section 8(a) (2) is to vouchsafe to the employees that in
the bargaining relationship those purporting to act for them not be rendered
so subject to employer control or dependent upon employer favor as to tend to
deprive them of the will and the capacity to give their devotion to the interest
of the group they represent
Other cases where domination was found principally involved
situations where the proposal and impetus for the formation of an
maids" union or "committee" came from the employe', who determined
the form, structure, and nature thereof, and the resulting
union or "committee" did not have the characteristics of an existence
independent of the employer, e g, discernible resources, dues, membership
requirements, constitution, and bylaws 82
Hotpotnt Div, General Electric Go, above
14 However, in Federal Tool Corp • 130 NLRB 210, and Holland Mfg Co. 129 NLRB 776,
the Board did not "rely" upon the trial examiner's conclusion that the employer's power
to unseat a selected committee member by terminating his employment necessarily constituted
evidence of domination and interference
82 See, e g • Clegg Machine Works, 129 NLRB 1243, Lee Rowan Mfg Go, 129 NLRB
980, 990-99i, and Holland Mfg Go, above, at 785, where the Board adopted the trial ex
amtner's finding of domination based, in part, upon the employer's enabling the "committee"
to function on its property and to use its facilities, and its payment of wages for
time spent by the committee after regular working hours in conferences with management