TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

128 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
In one case, where two unions insisted upon a common expiration
date in their contracts, covering the employees in two of the employer's
plants represented by them, and in a third of the employer's
plants represented by another labor organization, the Board, finding
no violation of section 8(b) (3), held that contract dui ation is a bargainable
issue and that the insistence of the unions on specific
expiration dates was not evidence of bad-faith bargaining 88
In another case, where the union allegedly refused to bargain with
an employer association by executing individual conti acts with two
employers, the Board dismissed the section 8(b) (3) complaint on
the ground that these employers had in fact abandoned group bargaining
and were not association members at the time they signed
the individual contracts with the union 89 The Board reiterated the
well-established rule that "a single-employer unit becomes appropriate
when the employer, at an appropriate time, manifests an intention
to withdraw from group bargaining and to pursue an individual
course of action with respect to its labor relations"
(1) Strike for Illegal Demands
The Board held in two related cases that the unions' conduct not
only in striking, but also in refusing to work overtime to force the
inclusion of unlawful provisions 4° in a collective-bargaining contract,
constituted a failure to bargain in good faith and was, therefore,
violative of section 8(b) (3) 41 With regard to the Supreme Court's
decision m the insurance Agents case," which held that certain union
harassing tactics accompanying bargaining negotiations were not
evidence of bad faith, the Board pointed out that since a strike to
compel the inclusiori of illegal provisions in a contract is a violation
of section 8(b) (3), a fortiori, a partial strike—in this case the refusal
to work overtime—to accomplish the same objective is equally
unlawful
However, m the Cheney California Lumber case," which involved a
strike for a new contract to replace a contract with a no-strike clause,
a majority of the Board found that on the basis of the Insurance
Agents decision, the strike did not in itself violate section 8(b) (3),
even assuming that it was m violation of the no-strike clause
38 United Steelworker8, Local 2140 (U S Pipe d Foundry), 129 NLRB 357
89 Cooks, Wait ere 6 Waitresses Union, Local 827 (Greater Peoria Restaurant Assn ), 131
NLRB No 33
40 These provisions were found to be "hot cargo" clauses unlawful under sec 8(e)
See below, pp 142-145
Amalgamated Lithographers, Local 17 (Employing Lithographers), 130 NLRB 985,
Amalgamated Lithographers, Local 78 (Miami Po8t Co ), 130 NLRB 968
o NLRB v Insurance Agents' International Union, AFL—CIO (Pt udential Insurance
Go), 361 US 477 (1980) , Twenty-fifth Annual Report (1960), pp 122-123
da Lumber d Sawmill Workers, Local No 2647, et al (Oheney California Lumber Go ),
130 NLRB 235 Member Rodgers, dissenting as to other holdings, did not consider that
the issue of whether violation of a no strike claim is of itself an 8(b) (3) violation was
presented