TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 97
in Betts Cadillac, as contended by the employe]. Notwithstanding
some section 8(a) (1) conduct by two supeivisois, and the employer's
iefusal to agree to a contract with a union-seculity clause, the Board
held that the record did not support a finding that the shutdown was
motivated by an unlawful design to weaken the union, but, on the
contrary, that it met the Betts Cadillac "test of reasonableness" and
was therefore lawful It noted that in these circumstances the employer
"had a legitimate interest" in taking the steps it did to make
sure that its customers' television sets would not be tied up during
the strike, that if it had waited until the autholized strike was actually
in progress the movement of its customers' partially dismantled sets
to other shops would have presented an extreme hardship, and that it
had no assurance that othei shops could, oi would, take its work after
a full-scale strike was in progress
(2) Discontinuance of Operations
An employer who causes his employees to 13(1 discharged or laid
off by closing the plant, or discontinuing the operation in which the
employees are engaged, violates section 8(a) (3) if the action is not
taken solely for economic reasons," but, as shown in several cases
during the past year, because of the employees' organizational
activities 40
Thus, in one case,41 a Board majority held that the employer violated
section 8(a) (3) by closing its plant, and thereby discharging
its employees, wheie the plant closing and cessation of operations
weie the dnect result of the employees' selection of the charging
union as their bargaining lepiesentative, not, as claimed by the employer,
for economic reasons 42 In this case, the employer, upon being
infix med by the charging union that it iepresented a majority of the
employees and desned iecognition, Intei i ogated and tin eatened employees
for joining the union, warned them that if they still chose
the charging union he could not remain in business because of the
rates it would demand—although the union assured him that it had
no fixed rates and that it was willing to negotiate—but that he could
continue the business if they chose a iival union, then terminated all
the employees when they advised that they had determined to remain
a' See, e g, Jays Foods, lac, 129 NLRB 690, footnote 2 Cf Dayton Rubber Co • 110
NLRB 1322
4° See, e g, Winchester Electronics, 123 NLRB 1292, footnote 4, Stem, t Rog Ring Co,
Inc , 131 NLRB No 49
Yoscpli Bag Co, 128 NLRB 211, Member Rodgeis, dissenting, v.ould find no violation
whenn er an employ er chooses to go out of business "tegardlese of the reasons therefor"
See Bat tiers Iron Foundry, 126 NLRB 30 (1960)
4- Cf Fsbteboatd Paper Products Coil), 130 NLRB 1558, wheie the Boni d found th it
the employer contracted out its maintenance work for economic rather than discriminatory
motie es See footnote 43 belov, , see also below, p 111, for discussion of sec S(a) (5)
aspects