TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Enforcement Litigation 113
refused to sign a contract unless the employer would agree to post
a performance bond payable to the union in the event the employer
should commit any substantial breach of the contract 4°
4. Union Unfair Labor Practices
a Union Responsibility for Acts of Its Agents
Several cases decided dining the year presented the question of
union responsibility for proscribed conduct In the Delaware Valley
Beer case,° the Third Circuit agreed with the Board that the union
was answerable for the conduct of its stewards in directing employees
of neutral employers not to handle goods destined for the pi imary
employer Although the union's constitution and bylaws were not in
the record, according to the court, the evidence that different stewards
at different places of business gave the same kind of olden and
indulged in the same kind of conduct was "good evidence to show how
stewards were acting" and "good circumstantial evidence to show this
action was within the scope of their authority" Moreover, the court
said, "an expert body like the Board knows Nv hat some labor terms
mean without having their meanings spelled out in each individual
case"
In the Kaufmann case,42 the District of Columbia Circuit, one
judge dissenting, agreed with the Board that a district council was
answerable for a foreman's unlawful refusal to hire an applicant foi
employment because he could not obtain a work permit The foreman
was a member of a local union affiliated with the council and
had never been advised that the council had suspended the piovisions
of its written constitution and working rules which iequned woik
permits as a condition of employment
Thereafter, the same circuit approved 43 the Boincl's finding that
a union, whose rules required foremen not to woik with nonunion men
or permit their subordmates to do so, was answerable foi a work stoppage
induced by a union foreman 44 because nonunion men were on
the job, even though. the striking employees weie covered by a conti
act with their employer which peimitted them to refuse to work
on a job wheie nonunion men were working However, the court
44 Local 104, Local 1287, and Local 1010, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators d Paperhangers
of America v NLRB (Cheatham), 293 P 2d 133
N L It B v Brewery and Beer Distributor Driveis, Helpers if Platfm in Men, Local 880,
7i/tem:attend Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc, 281 F 2d 319
Carpenters District Council of Detroit, etc, United B1 othei hood of Carpenters et Joints! s
of America, AFL—CIO V NLRB, 285 F 26 289
43 United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of AMC ice, APL—CIO v NLRB (Endicott
Church), 286 F 26 533
44 Compare with Londuct of autalit.1 totem in in thl, c Lse disiuilsed below, p 173