TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

182 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
"arbitrary and capi mous," a Board determination that a unit limited
to the tool manufacturing department in an aircraft plant was
appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes The court stated
that the Board improperly excluded employees in another department
who manufactured the same tools with the same kinds of machines
and materials, frequently interchanged with employees in the certified
unit, and worked the same hours for the same pay
In a case against an employer and a union, which weie patties to
a collective-bargaining agreement covering the employer's depai t-
ment store," the Second Circuit approved the Board's finding that
the employer and the union violated section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3)
and 8(b) (1) (A) and (2), respectively, by applying this agreement,
which contained a union-security clause, to a branch store during the
hiring process and before the branch store had opened The court
stated, "The Board's action in thus peimitting a new gioup of employees
at a new store to choose freely a bargaining representative is
fully in accord with the policy of § 7 of the Act and is a valid
exercise of the Board's wide discretion in determining the appropriate
bargaining unit"
But in Industrial layon, 73 the Fourth Circuit set aside the Board's
bargaining order based on the certification of a union which did not
meet the "traditional union" test of the Board's Amerman Potash
rule 74 The court held that the Board did not "furnish an adequate
explanation of [its] change of policy or meet the charge that it is
inconsistent and arbitrary to apply the American Potash rule to a
craft unit .when it s first severed from the main body of the employees
but to ignore the pile altogether when a change in the bargaining
tepresentative is afterward proposed " 76
73 241 L B B v Master. Lake Raceme, Inc , et al • 287 F 2d 35
N T R Ii Induetrial Rayon Corp , 291 F 2d 809
74 American Pauli if Chemical Corp, 107 NLRB 1418 (1954), discussed above, pp 50-57
Compare with NLRB v Pittsburgh Plate Glace Co • 270 F 2d 167 (C A 4, 1959),
certiorari denied 461 US 943, Twenty-fifth Annual Report (1960), pp 143-144