07.02.2015 Views

TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Unfair <strong>Labor</strong> Practices 123<br />

by the union for his discharge In this case, the union steward<br />

warned the employer that it would not be safe for union members to<br />

work with this nonunion employee on union jobs as they might be subject<br />

to union fine In the majority's opinion, this warning clearly<br />

implied that the union men might refuse to work if this nonunion employee<br />

was used on union jobs<br />

The <strong>Board</strong> also had occasion to reiterate that peaceful picketing for<br />

a union-security clause at a tune when the union did not represent<br />

a majority of employees in an appropriate unit constitutes an unlawful<br />

"attempt to cause" discrimination within section 8(b) (2).6<br />

And a work stoppage to induce an employer to discharge union employees<br />

who had exercised their lawful right to apply directly to<br />

the employer for jobs—rather than through the union's hiring hall—<br />

was likewise held to be an unlawful "attempt to cause" discrimmation,7<br />

as was a union's threats of economic pressures if a nonunion employee<br />

was not discharged 8<br />

In Spzegelberg Lumber & Building Co ,9 a Boatd majority held<br />

that, under the particular circumstances, a union unlawfully caused<br />

the discharge of an employee for accepting the employer's offer of<br />

substantially better working conditions than were contained in the<br />

union's contract with the employer. The union's action, according<br />

to the majority, foreseeably tended to encourage membership in and<br />

fealty to the union It pointed out, however, that its holding here<br />

did not mean that a union is powerless to protect its bargaining position<br />

when confronted with dissident employees seeking different<br />

working conditions outside of collective bargaining, but, rather, that<br />

the union cannot protect that position by causing dissident workers<br />

to be discharged for that reason<br />

(1) Illegal Employment Agreements and Practices<br />

The <strong>Board</strong> has consistently held that a union violates section 8<br />

(b) (2) by entering into or maintaining an agreement which requires<br />

in effect that preference in hiring be given to the contracting union's<br />

members," or otherwise establishes hiring practices that result in<br />

°Local Joint Executive <strong>Board</strong> of Hotel cl Restaurant Employees etc (Crown Cafeteria),<br />

130 NLRB 1551<br />

7 Subordinate Lodge No 169, Boilermakers (A B Anderson Construction Co ), 129<br />

NLRB 1003, Member Fanning dissenting on another point<br />

8 Local 49, Operating Engineers (AGO of Minnesota), 129 NLRB 399 Compare Ford<br />

Motor Co (Sterling Plant), 131 NLRB No 174<br />

2 International Association of Bridge, Structural 4 Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 494<br />

(Spiegelberg Lumber 4 Building Go), 128 NLRB 1379, Members Rodgers and Fanning<br />

dissenting<br />

"See, e g, Union Taxi Corp, 130 NLRB 814, Southeastern Plate Glass Co, 129 NLRB<br />

412, Member TenkIna (lamenting In part, Amerman Ad, enuring Distributors 12e NLRB<br />

1340

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!