TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

84 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
the beliefs, sentiments, and attitudes among the strikers themselves
on the issues involved in the strike, as to whether the strike was broken
or lost, and the likelihood that the union was ieady to settle for less
than currently indicated, (2) investigations into the private lives of
the iunon s chief negotiator and other union officials, including mail
checks and telephone covets, and (3) checks and repoits on the coming
and going of union officials at union headquarters and elsewheie,
and ieports showing that constant surveillance was maintained at
valious strike headquaiters and like places in the area of the strike
However, plans and repoits for further use of detective investigations,
surveillance, and strike breaking weie not found violative of
the section because there was no evidence that they were carried out
Othei action of the employer which the Boaid condemned in the
Kohler case, although not found violative of section 8(a) (1) or
wait anting piosecution under section 12 of the act," was Kohlei's
acceptance of iepoits of private detectives it had hired to investigate
and report on counsel for the General Counsel and his activities, including
investigation of his parents and inquiries of his wife The
Boaid also condemned the plans revealed in such reports for future
"bugging" of the hotel at. which the General Counsel's trial staff was
quartered 68
d Discharges for Concerted Activities
The discharge of employees for engaging in protected concerted
activities not sponsored by a union, or not reflecting activity for or
on behalf of a union, is violative of section 8(a) (1) 67 During the
past year, it was peonted out that in order to sustain a section 8(a) (1)
violation based on such discharges, "it is necessary to establish that
at the time of the discharge the employer had knowledge of the concerted
nature of the activity for which the employee was discharged " 68
In one case, an employee was discharged for sending a letter, approved
but not signed by two othei employees, complaining to the
State health department about alleged unsanitary plant conditions °°
Prior to the discharge, the employer had knowledge only of the letter
which was signed by the dischargee alone, and believed that she was
acting solely for herself in writing this letter Although the Board
"Sec 12 of the act provides that "4ny person n ho shall n Whiny resist, prevent, impede,
or Interfere with any member of the Board or any of its agents or agencies in the
performance of duties pursuant to this Act shall be punished by a fine of not more than
85,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both"
66 Kohler Co, above, at 1100-1102
"Discharges which encourage or discourage union membership are specifically prohibited
by sec 8(a) (3), and are discussed below, pp 91-106
"Wald o Mfg Co • lac, 128 NLRB 487 Indiana Gan if Chemical Ca; p, 1'30 NLRB 1488
Member Fanning dissenting
to Waite Mfg Co, Ino, above