NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

98 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charged them. The Board, stating that "The fact that Lowy was
willing to meet with union representatives is of no importance in the
face of his closing down of his plant in preference to negotiating with
the union," held that there had been a refusal to bargain.
In several cases the employer, subsequent to a collective bargaining
request, dominated or interfered with the formation or administration
of a labor organization. The Board inferred that such activity
was motivated by a desire to eliminate as the collective bargaining
agency the union which had made the request and was an attempt by
the employer to avoid its obligation to bargain collectively."
In Matter of eating Rope Works, Inc., 63 the Board pointed to the
fact that the employer's activities in connection with "Collective Bargaining
Committee," whose formation and administration it dominated,
followed closely upon the request for a collective bargaining
conference by the union organizer, "whom the respondent had obviously
put off upon a false pretext in order to have an opportunity
to undermine and dissipate the Union's strength." In Matter of
American Manufacturing Company 64 the Board referred to the fact
that during the period when an organizer for the Textile Workers
Organizing Committee which represented the majority of the employees
in an appropriate unit, was making repeated but unsuccessful
efforts to telephone the employer's officers for the purpose of arranging
a meeting, the employer was actively engaged in dominating the
administration of another labor organization and in contributing
port to it. This was held to indicate that the employer did not at any
time during the attempted negotiation intend in good faith to bargain
collectively with the Textile ''-i‘Vorkers Organizing Committee.
When the employer attempts to bargain with his individual employees
after efforts at collective bargaining have been initiated, it
is evident that the employer repudiates the collective bargaining principle.
The Board has asserted that dealing with individual employees
in such a situation is intended to evade the obligation to bargain
collectively by destroying the effectiveness of the union as a collective
bargaining agency.61
e° Matter of National Licorice Company and Bakery and Confectionery Workers International
Union of America, Local Union 405, Greater New York and Vicinity, 7 N. L R. B.,
537;• Matter of The Triplett Electrical Instrument Company, The Diller Manufacturing
Company, doing business under the firm name and style of Readrite Meter Works and
United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No. 714. 5 N. L. R. B. 835; Matter
. of American Manufacturing Company; Company Union of the American Manufacturing,
Company; the Collective Bargaining Committee of the Brooklyn Plant of the American
Menu featuring Company and Textile Workers' Organizing Committee, C. I. 0., 5 N. L. R. B.
443; Matter of eating Rope Works, Inc., and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, C. I. 0.,
4 N. L. R. B. 1100. In Matter of Stackpole Carbon Company and United Electrical d Radio
Workers of America, Local No. 502, 6 N. L. R. B. 171, the Board in finding a refusal to
bargain, stated : "It is clear from the facts as presented above that during the week of
January 4. 1937. which the respondent requested for consideration of the contract presented
by Local No. 502, no such consideration was in fact given. During that week, the
respondent deliberatel y negotiated an agreement with a labor organization which it had
fostered and was at the time fostering for the purpose of defeating the attempt of Local
No. 502 to bar gain collectively."
63 Matter of eating Rope Works, Inc. and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, C. I. 0.,
4 N. L It. B. 1100.
"Matter of American Manufacturing Company; Company Union of the American Manufacturing
Company; The Collective Bargaining Committee of the Brooklyn Plant of the
American Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers' Organizing Committee, C. I. 0.,
5 N. L. R. B. 443.
65 One employer described in picturesque terms its Practice of bargaining individually with
employees while attempts at collective bargaining were being made as one intended to
"smoke out" its employees and to play "both ends against the middle, listening to one end
and talking to the other." Matter of Tay/or Trunk Company and Luggage Workers Union,
Local No. 50, of the International Ladies' Hand Bag, Pocketbook and Novelty Workers
Union, 6 N. L. R. B. 32.