NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PILIXCIPLES ESTABLISH_ED 99
The Board has held that, under certain circumstances, the action
of the employer in bargaining with its employees individually, in
itself constituted an effective refusal to bargain collectively and was
an unfair labor practice within the meaning of section 8 (5) 66 ; in
other cases such action was one of the factors leading to the Board's
determination that the employer had refused to bargain.67
In Matter of Biles-Coleman Lumber Company," the president of
the employer company called the employees together in a mass meeting
2 days after the union had presented the employer with a proposed
collective bargaining contract. The president told the employees, in
substance, that he had been presented with a list of demands from
the "so-called" union; advised them that it was impossible to meet
any of the demands ; stated that the workers would be better off if
they paid no heed to outside organizers; told them his answer was
final and that they had best go home and talk it over with their
wives. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit evaluated
this evidence and asserted. that—
There is sufficient evidence to warrant the Board's finding that this conduct
on the part of respondent was a refusal to bargain collectively within the meaning
of section 8 (5). Collective bargaining does not require the employer to
reach an agreement. It does require sincere negotiations with the representatives
of the employees. Jeffrey-DeWitt Insulator Co. v. N. L R. B. (C. C. A.-4),
91 F. (2d) 134; N. L. R. B. v. Sands Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.-6), 96 F (2d) 721.
Here, in effect, the employer says to his employees, "I will not treat with your
representatives; their demands are impossible; furthermore if you attempt
to deal with me through them, you will lose your individuality; forget about it
and go home."
This is not collective bargaining * *
A strike was called as a consequence of this refusal to bargain.
The employer, during the course of the strike, again resorted to
Matter of The Louisville Refining Company and International Association, Old Field,
Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, 4 N. L. It. B. 844; Matter of Hopwood Retinwing
Company, Inc. and Monarch Retinning Company, Inc. and Metal Polishers. Buffers,
Platers and He/pere International Union, Local No. 8, and Teamsters Union, Local No.
584, 4 N. L. R. B. 922. In the latter case the Board said that "• • • by the letters of
April 5 and 8, the Hopwood Company solicited its employees to return to work by signing
these individual contracts. It thus attempted to bargain with the employees individually,
although negotiations had been initiated for collective bargaining. By its tactics the Hopwood
Company manifesly attempted to destroy the Unions here involved as effective instruments
of representation of its employees. Such action by itself constituted an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) of the Act." The Court of Appeals of
the Second Circuit, in reviewing the Board's order, stated that "the Board could find, as it
did, that Hopwood maintained an attitude of refusal to bargain with unions as the proper
representative of the employees • * *•" National Labor Relations Board V. Hopwood
Retinning Company, Inc., 98 F. (2d) 97 (C. C. A. 2d, 1938).
07 Matter of Jacob A. Hunkele, trading as Tr-State Towel Service of the Independent
Towel Supply Company and Local No. 40, United Laundry Workers Union, 7 N. L. R. B.
1276; Matter of McNeely & Price Company and National Leather Workers Association, Local
No. 30, of the 0. I. 0., 6 N. L. R. B. 800; Matter of Taylor 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; Matter of The Jacobs Bros. Co., Inc. and United
Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No. 1226, 5 N. L. R. B. 620; Matter of Leo L.
Lowy, Individually, Doing Business as Tapered Roller Bearing Corporation, and International
Association of Machinists, District No. 15, 3 N. L. R. B. 938; Matter of The Boss
Manufacturing Company and International Glove Workers' Union of America Local No. 85,
3 N. L. R. B. 400; Matter of Atlas Mills, Inc. and Textile House Workers Union No. 2269,
United Textile Workers of America. 3 N. L. R. B. 10.
68 Matter of Biles-Coleman Lumber Company and Puget Sound District Council of Lumber
and Sawmill Workers. 4 N. L. R. B. 679, order enforced in National Labor Relations Board
V. Bites-Coleman Lumber Com pany. 96 F. (2d) 197 (C. C. A. 9th, 1938).
National Labor Relations Board v. Biles-Coleman Lumber Company, 96 F. (2d) 197
(C. C. A. 9th, 1938).
The union had considered the respondent's speech to the employees a flat refusal to
negotiate. The Board said, "We find that the contents of the address itself and the circumstances
that it was made to all the employees and not merely to the representatives of the
Union, as collective bargaining in good faith would require, fully justified their construction."