TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Enforcement Litigation 181
(i) and (u) Although section 8(f) validates certain hiring-hall
agreements where they ale voluntauly entered into, said the court,
"we find no congressional approval of the use of stukes or picketing
to compel execution of a pi ehire agreement Indeed, the legislative
history indicates the contrary to be true"
5. Representation Matters
Barganung oiders, issued by the Boaid in several cases arising
undei section 8(a) (5), were contested on the giound that the Board
exceeded its discretion either in ruling on issues pertaining to an
election conducted in an antecedent repiesentation case, or in holding
that the unit of employees represented by the complaining union was
appropriate One case involved a Board determination that certain
employees wete entitled to a self-deteimmation election and could
not lawfully be treated as an accretion to an existing unit
ca.
a Elections
In the Cross case,69 involving a refusal to baagain by an employer,
the Sixth Circuit held that the Board "acted unreasonably, and, thei e-
fore, arbitrarily" in certifying an incumbent union which, on the
morning of the decertification election, distributed handbills to the
employees overstating the size of a layoff before the advent of the
union, the number of laid-off employees who weie not recalled, and
the improvements which the union had obtained in supplemental
unemployment benefits The corn t disagreed with the Board's findings
that the union's misrepiesentations were fair and constituted
mere propaganda, half-truths, and legitimate campaign representations
The court vacated the union's certification and remanded the
case to the Board for furthei consideration
b Unit Determinations
Two cases put in issue the propriety of the Board's exclusion of
certain employees from a certified unit In one of these cases, 7° the
Fifth Circuit held that, although the Board might properly have
included tugboat captains in a unit of tugboat employees since they
did about the same work as the employees but weie in charge of
the tugboats, the broad discretion vested in the Board precluded the
court from interfering with the Boaid's determination to exclude
them However, in the other case,71 the Ninth Circuit rejected, as
so The °roes Co v NLRB, 286 F 2d 799, rehearing denied 288 F 2d 188
70 1 iT LRB v Belcher Towing 00 , 284 F 2d 118
71 31LRB v Commit- Pomona—a Division of Gonvair, a Division of General Dynamics,
286F 2d691