NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

94 TIIIRI) ANNUAL REPORT 01' NATIONAL LA13011 11,1i1LATIONS 130A11I3
In Matter of Kueline Manufacturing Company, 45 the employer
asserted that the union had interfered with the moving of lumber
out of the plant, and that it had been agreed that noninterference
with the, movement of the lumber was to be a condition precedent to
the employer's attendance at the bargaining conference. The Board
said:
In our view of the case it is unnecessary to decide whether or not there was
a breach of the alleged agreement. The act imposes an unconditional duty
upon an employer to bargain collectively with the representatives designated by
a majority of his employees in an appropriate unit. If we assume that the
strikers interfered with the movement of the respondent's property, their misconduct,
for which appropriate remedies exist under State laws, does not justify
the respondent in ignoring Federal law by its refusal to bargain collectively
with the Union."
The Board has held that the fact that the employer's production
was intermittent in nature, because he produced monuments only
upon receipt of orders, did not absolve him from the duty of bargainmg
with the duly designated bargaining agency.45
In Matter of Scandore Paper Box Co., Inc.,48 the employer stated
that it would not enter into an agreement with the union and
declared that negotiations by the union as to conditions of employment
constituted interference with the management of the business.
An employee, arguing that the employer's hostility to the union
rendered the union's cause hopeless, then started a bargaining committee
which worked out with the employer individual contracts of
employment which were entered into by the employees. The. Board
stated that the negotiation of these individual contracts did not
absolve the employer from the failure to bargain collectively :
This negotiation of individual contracts by the respondent, Continental
Container Corporation, does not fulfill its obligation under Section 8 (5) of the
Act to bargain collectively with the duly authorized representatives of its
employees. While there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the employer
was directly responsible for the formation of the bargaining committee, it is
plain that the employees designated the committee as their representative
45 Matter of Kueltne Manufacturing Company and Local No. 1791, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 7 N. L. R. B. 304.
" In National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. (2d) 802 (C. C. A.
2d, 1938) certioraria denied, 304 U. S. 578 (1938), the court, referring to the effect of
misconduct by the union on the duty of the employer to bargain collectively, said: "As
we have already said, the act does not attempt to settle industrial disputes ; it leaves the
parties to the resultant of their opposed economic powers ; and while it does force them to
treat with each other, it may be assumed to contemplate only bona fide negotiation.
Hence it is no doubt true that it does not require further negotiation after it becomes
apparent that a settlement is impossible. A union may at times seek to give the appearance
of wishing to treat, after it knows that all chance of agreement is gone
in such conflicts each side generally wishes to place the odium of rilpture upon the
other. For this reason the conduct of a union, like that of an employer, not only during the
negotiations, when there are any, but before they are, may be relevant in ascertaining
whether the proposal to confer is genuine, or only part of the tactics of the fight. Nothing
else can be material though the union may have misconducted itself, it liars a locus
poenitentiae ; if it offers in good faith to treat, the employer may not refuse because of its
past sins. In the case at bar there was no warrant whatever for supposing that further
negotiations would have been useless. The respondent had not met with the men except
through a subordinate official, and even then, had misstated or concealed the facts about
Elmira. Even though the wage increase had been definitely refused and though the issue
was closed, the proposed shift to Elmira and especially the equivocation about it remained ;
they had been the chief causes of the men's anxiety, and they had not been disposed of.
That they wished further conferences about these matters cannot be doubted. For these
reasons it was unnecessary to go into any past delinquencies of the union."
Nor does the fact that the union has changed its demands during the course of the negotiations
necessarily relieve the employer from his duty to bargain collectively. Matter
of Federal Carton Corporation and New York Printing Pressmen's Union No. 51, 5 N. L.
R. B. 879.
41 Matter of J. W. Beasley, Individually and Trading as Standard Memorial Works and
Granite Cutters' International Association of America, Charlotte Branch, 7 N. L. R. B.,
1069.
48 Matter of Scandore Paper Box Co., Inc., and Continental Container Corporation and
Paper Bow Makers Union, Local 18Z39, 4 N. L It. B. 910.