NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

100 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
individual bargaining with its employees. The Board summed up
the situation as follows:
The evidence is quite clear that by May 16 the respondent had deeided that
the union committee was not likely to yield without gaining recognition as
exclusive bargaining agency and something more than was contained in the
five hollow clauses offered by the respondent on May 11. The respondent therefore
determined to reopen its plant by going over the heads of the committee
and dealing with the union adherents individually—in short, to discard collective
bargaining as a means for settling the strike.
In Matter of The Louisville Refining Company," the employer, on
February 16, refused to confer with the union representative. The
next day the respondent told its employees individually that it had
decided to change from a 6-hour workday to an 8-hour workday.
The subject of hours of employment had been a subject of attempted
discussion, and the Board found that the question of the 8-hour day
had not been so fully explored as to lead to the belief that further
negotiations would be fruitless.' Its analysis of these circumstances
led the Board to find that-
* * * the respondent, in discharging its employees as the result of the
change to the 8-hour schedule, again violated its duty to bargain collectively
with the Union. The question of hours of employment was already the subject
of attempted discussion in the conferences between the respondent and the
union representative. The respondent was under a duty to discuss the proposed
change and the discharges with the Union in order to give its representatives
an opportunity to offer substitute proposals and to suggest an equitable basis
of making the discharges, if necessary. Instead of this, the respondent, by its
officers, first rejected Stickel's [the union representative] offer to bargain and
then approached its men, not through the Union which was requesting further
negotiations, but individually, and apprised them of its will. We can think of
no more direct method of destroying the possibility of collective bargaining
than this complete disregard of the duly selected representatives of the
employees."
3. REFUSAL TO GRANT EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION
Since, under section 8 (5) and 9 (a) of the act, it is an unfair labor
practice for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively and exclusively
with representatives selected by the majority of employees in
an appropriate unit," the employer cannot fulfill its obligation to
a labor organization which is the exclusive representative of the
employees in an appropriate unit by offering to bargain with that
labor organization for its members only."
70 matter of The Louisville Relining Company and International Association, Oil Field,
Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, 4 N. L. It. B. 844.
71 "In the meetings which had taken place on Jan. 21 and 22, it does not appear that the
question of the 8-hour day was so fully explored as to warrant Brown [the respondent's
president] in believing that further negotiations on this issue were futile. Although Stickel
[the union representative] and the committee appear to have rejected the 8-hour proposal
when suggested, they also stated at the conferences on Jan. 21 and 22 that if an 8-hour
day was to be installed, nevertheless, the principles upon which the resulting lay-offs would
be made gave scope for collective bargaining."
72 Cf. Matter of Leo Lowy, Individually, Doing Business as Tapered Roller Bearing Corporation,
and International Association of Machinists, District No. 15 3 N. L. It. B. 938.
The union asked for a 40- instead of a 50-hour week. The employer said he would check up
on his production and comply if possible: that evening the employer called a meeting of the
employees, referred to the union in opprobrious terms, and then told the employees that he
would install a 40-hour week.
"The method of determination of the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
and the methods of determining whether the representative has been selected by a
majority of the employees in an appropriate unit are dealt with at pages 156 ff. and 126 ff.,
respectively.
74 National Labor Relations Board V. Biles-Coleman Lumber Company, 96 F. (2d) 197
(C. C. A. 9th, 1938), enforcing Board's order In the Matter of Biles-Coleman Lumber Company
and Puget Sound District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers 4 N. L. It. B. 679;
Matter of Fedders Manufacturing Co., Inc. and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel
Tin Workers of N. A:, Lodge 1755, 7 N. L. It. B. 817; Matter of Burnside Steel Foundry
Company and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America,