TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

156 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
shop clause' For the command of § 8 is clear and explicit and the
only exception is plainly spelled out in the provisos to § 8(a) (3)
The Court rejected the Board's finding as to the foreman clause
on three grounds First, although the contract limited employment
to journeymen and apprentices, it did not requii e them to be union
members Second, the foreman was in fact required to exercise his
hiring authority as agent for the employer, in view of a contract
provision barring the union from disciplining the foreman "for
carrying out the instructions of the publisher in accordance with this
agreement." Third, "as we said in [Local 357], decided this day
we will not assume that unions and employers will violate the federal
law, [pi ohibitrag] discrimination in favor of union members against
the deal command of this Act of Congress As stated by the Court
of Appeals, 'In the absence of provisions calling explicitly for illegal
conduct, the conta act cannot be held illegal because it failed affirmatively
to disclaim all illegal objectives' " 16
c Reimbursement of Union Dues and Fees
In the Local 60 17 case, the Board, having found that the employer
and the union had maintained an illegal preferential hiring arrangement,
oidered the parties not only to cease giving effect to the illegal
arrangement, but also to refund to the employees dues and other fees
paid to the union under the airangement 18 This remedy was first
announced in the Brown-Olds case," where the Board concluded that
the policies of the act would best be served by requii ing a reimbursement
of the dues and fees paid to the union under an illegal closed-shop
arrangement, since,these moneys were "the price these employees paid
in order to retain their jobs" Thereafter, in the Local 357 (Los
Angeles-Seattle) case," discussed above, the Board extended the same
remedy to exclusive hiring arrangements which failed to contain the
Mountain Pacific safeguards
The Sup] eme Court, reversing the Seventh Circuit, 31 held that a refund
of dues and fees was beyond the Board's remedial authoi ity
these circumstances The Court stated "All of the employees affected
Is Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court granted the union's petition for
certiorari in Local 653, International Brotherhood of Teamatere v NLRB (Vsranda
Fuel Go), i6 US 763, and directed that the case be rem inded to the Board for boon
siderntion in the light of Local 357 In Local 558, the Board had found that a reduction
in employee seniority was discriminatory where It (loud from a contract provi sion which
delegated exclusive contiol over seniority to the union (125 NLRB 454)
"NLRB 1. Local 60, United Brotherhood of Cal pent era, 365 U S 651
MI Mechanical Handling Systems, /no , 122 NLRB 398
19 United Aamociation of Journeymen, etc (Brown-Olde Plumbing and Heating Corp ),
115 NLRB 594
Es 121 NLRB 1629 at 1631-92
a 278F 2d699