TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board
TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board
TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board
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 131<br />
It also decided that a partnership of independent contractois having<br />
no employees is not an "employer" within the meaning of that portion<br />
of section 8(b) (4) (B) which "relates to an object of requiling 'any<br />
other employer' to recognize or bargain with" a union 49<br />
a Inducement and Encouragement of Work Stoppage<br />
(1) Individual Employed by Any Person<br />
1 •<br />
The 1959 amendments prohibit inducement 01 encouragement of<br />
strike action by "any individual employed by any pei son," i ather<br />
than merely by "employees of any employer" as under the old section<br />
8(b) (4) In the Carolzna Lumber case," the <strong>Board</strong> for the fist<br />
time had occasion to consider the extent of the coverage of this new<br />
language Observing that this language did not answer the question<br />
of how much broader a category of employed persons are protected<br />
from unlawful inducement, the <strong>Board</strong> examined the pertinent legislative<br />
history and concluded<br />
As indicated by the legislative history, the term "individual employed by any<br />
person" in 8(b) (4) (1) refers to supervisors who in interest are more nearly<br />
ielated to "rank and-file employees" than to "management," as the term is generally<br />
understood On the other hand, the term "person" as used in 8(b) (4) (II)<br />
would seem to refer to individuals more nearly related to the managerial level<br />
So construed, 8(b) (4) (i) would outlaw attempts to induce or encourage employees<br />
and some supervisors, to achieve the objectives proscribed by 8(b) (4)<br />
Similar attempts to induce or encourage others more nearly related to the<br />
managerial level for the same objectives would be lawful However, if in the<br />
latter case the labor organization went beyond persuasion and attempted to<br />
coerce such managerial officials to accomplish the proscribed objectives, it would<br />
violate 8(b) (4) (a)<br />
This leaves for determination whether in a given case inducement was directed<br />
at a supervisor who is an "individual employed by any person" within<br />
the meaning of 8(b) (4) (1) No single across-the-board line on an organization<br />
chart can be drawn to determine in every case whether a supervisor is an "individual<br />
employed by any person" The authority and position of supervisors<br />
Tau from company to company It will theiefore be necessary in each case<br />
in determining this question to examine such factors as the organization setup<br />
of the company, the authority, responsibility, and background of the supervisors,<br />
and their working conditions, duties, and functions on the job involved in this<br />
dispute, salary, earnings, perquisites, and benefits No single factor will be<br />
determinative<br />
In accordance with this formula, the <strong>Board</strong> concluded in the same<br />
case that a project superintendent for a construction subcontractor<br />
was a top managerial representative on the job who was free to exercise<br />
authority, including requisitioning and purchasing supplies, witha<br />
Local 1921, Carpenters (Spar Buaders), 131 NLRB No 118<br />
50 Local 505, Teamsters (Carolina Lumber 00). 130 NLRB 1438, Member Rodgers concurring<br />
in the result<br />
818401-82-10
Change language