07.02.2015 Views

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED - 103<br />

segment separate from the negotiations which have preceded it." 86<br />

It follows, therefore, that the employer must accept those representatives<br />

chosen by its employees as the duly designated representatives<br />

throughout the entire process of collective bargaining, and that an<br />

employer camiot refuse to recognize the representatives of its employees<br />

for the purpose of contracting any more than for the purpose<br />

of negotiation. The Board has held that a refusal to recognize<br />

a- union for the purposes of contracting is an unfair labor practice; 87<br />

the final agreement must be between the employer and the duly<br />

designated representatives of its employees. 88 In Matter of United<br />

States Stamping Company" the Union presented a proposed contract,<br />

the heading of which indicated that it was to be an agreement<br />

between the employer and the union. The employer suggested that<br />

the heading be worded as follows:<br />

This Agreement, made and entered into, by and between the United States<br />

Stamping Company, Moundsville, W. Va., and five or six names—whatever the<br />

case may be or their successors, who may be elected from employees of the<br />

United States Stamping Company by ballot to negotiate and bargain collectively<br />

with respect to wages, working conditions, affecting those employees who have<br />

authorized the above employees to represent them.<br />

The contention of the employer was that the signing of a contract<br />

with the union would be a violation of the act in that it would grant<br />

a preference to the union over another labor organization within the<br />

plant. The Board answered the contention by stating that—<br />

The * * * defense of the respondent requires no discussion. The Act<br />

requires negotiations by an employer, with a view to reaching an agreement,<br />

with the organization representing the majority of his employees to the exclusion<br />

of all other possible representatives. By express provision, such a majority<br />

representative is the exclusive representative of all the employees.2°<br />

In Matter of McNeely & Price Company,81 the representatives of<br />

the employer and the union arrived at a proposed agreement. The<br />

employer then refused to put this understanding in the form of a<br />

definite agreement between the employer and the union. The Board<br />

interpreted this refusal as a deliberate attempt to ignore the union<br />

in order to deprive it of any credit or advantage which might have<br />

accrued from having conducted the negotiations.<br />

The collective agreement must. of course, be a bilateral one between<br />

he employees' duly authorized representative and the employer.<br />

In Matter of United States Stamping Company 92 the employer<br />

116 Matter of The Louisville Refining Company and International Association, Oil Field, Gas<br />

Well and Refinery Workers of America. 4 N. L. R. B. 844.<br />

8, Matter of The Louisville Refining Company and International Association, Oil Field, Gas<br />

Well. and Refinery Workers of America. 4 N. L. R. B. 844. An employer's statement that be<br />

would never sign a contract with the Union, but would do so only with a committee of his<br />

employees, was declared by the Board to amount to "a stubborn refusal to bargain collectively<br />

with the representatives of his employees in an effort to reach an agreement."<br />

Matter of Hopwood R etinning Company, Inc. and Monarch Retinning Company, Inc. and<br />

Metal Polishers. Buffers. Platers and Helpers International Union, Local No. 8, and<br />

Teamsters Union. Local No. 584. 4 N. L. R. B. 922.<br />

ss Matter of Piqua Munising Wood Product. Company and Federal Labor Union, Local<br />

18787. 7 N. L. R B. 782.<br />

"Matter of United Slates Stamping Company and Enamel Workers Union, No. 18630,<br />

5 N. L. R. B. 172.<br />

" Cf. Matter of Federal Carton Corporation and New York Printing Pressmen's Union,<br />

No. 51, 5 N. L. R. B. 879. The employer, in a written statement to its employees, said:<br />

We have no objection to your duly elected representatives advising you or negotiating<br />

for you. But after such negotiations are finished, our agreement must be with our own<br />

employees, and not with the Union . . ." The Board found that there had been a refusal<br />

to bargain collectively.<br />

gi Matter of McNeely d Price Company and National Leather Workers Association, Local<br />

No. 30, of the C. I. 0., 6 N. L. R. B. 800.<br />

"Matter of United States Stamping Company and Enamel Workers Union, No. 18630,<br />

5 N. L. R. B. 172.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!