TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

164 Twenty sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
tive, a certified union which the employer favored, and transferred
their allegiance to another union"
(2) Participation by Supervisors in the Administration of a Union's Internal
Affairs
In the Detroit PLumbing Contractors case," the District of Columbia
Circuit upheld the Board's conclusion that a group of employers
in the construction industry had violated the section 8(a) (2) proscription
of "interference" when they failed to prevent certain of their
supervisoly officials, who occupied comparatively high-ranking positions
in the management hierarchy, nom holding office, voting in
elections, and otherwise taking any active part in the internal administration
of the union which represented the rank-and-file employees
Although these supervisors were all union members and acted "in
what they conside/ ed m complete good faith to be the best interests
of the union," they were excluded from the bargaining unit set up in
the union's standard contracts with their employers In these circumstances,
the coult held, citing with approval what it teimed the "caseto-case"
appi oach adopted by the Board in its 1957 Nassau-Suffolk
decision," the active participation of these employer officials in the
conduct of the union's affairs plainly jeopardized the rank-and-file
employees' freedom of speech and action in the same sphere It
obsel ved that "some of the members [might well be] afraid to oppose
policies in union affairs advocated by the supervisors for fear of
losing their jobs the very next day when the supervisor resumes his
role in the company and takes up the task of hiring and firing" The
court also noted that. whatever lights of union membership are
"guaranteed" to supervisors in section 14(a) of the act and the "Bill
of Rights" provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959, such lights are "clearly ancillary" to the rights
guaranteed employees in section 7 of the act In this connection, the
court stated that the Board's order, while interdicting further active
participation by the supervisors in union affans, accommodated their
legitimate interest uncle' section 14(a) by permitting them to remain
"nominal" members of the union Finally, the court expressed approval
of the Board's Nassau-Suffolk view that minor supervisors
11 However, because the employer assisted union had been cettified by the Boaid less
than a year before the shift the court dialined to enforce a provision of the order directing
the employer to stop recognizing and maintaining any contracts with that union unless
and until it should obtain a new certificItion In the St Louis Independent Packing
case, above where the assisted union did not have a fresh certification, the court granted
enforcement of this standard t ype of order, citing the Supreme Court's decision in
NLRB v District 50, United Mine Workers (Bowman), 355 U S 453
" Local 636, United Assn of Journeymen it Apprentices of the Plumbing d Pipe Pitting
Industry v NLR B, 287 1' 2d 354
''Naasau d Suffolk Contractors' Assn, Inc , 118 NLRB 174 (1957) See Twenty-second
Annual Report (1957), pp 87-139