NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 105
there had not been a refusal to bargain collectively. The Board
said—
On April 13, 1937, definite negotiations were begun between the respondent
and the Union with regard to an agreement covering the matter of wages, hours,
and working conditions. The negotiations continued regularly over a period
of weeks until May 22, 1937. The Union representatives insisted throughout
the negotiations upon either a closed-shop or a preferential shop. The respondent
stated its willingness to meet many of the Union demands, but was not
willing to sign an agreement for a closed-shop or a preferential shop. The respondent
suggested an agreement providing that lay-offs during slack seasons
and rehiring be on the basis of seniority. The record establishes that the
respondent acted in good faith in the negotiations and honestly attempted to
reach an agreement with the Union.97
The Board has emphasized the fact, however, that "Every avenue
and possibility of negotiation must be exhausted before it should be
admitted that an irreconcilable difference creating an impasse has
been reached." 98
Although an impasse has been reached, the situation may change
and new issues may be introduced. The employer must then resume
its collective bargaming.99
6. PRESENTATION OF PROOF OF MAJORITY
The employees must ordinarily make a demand upon the employer
to bargain collectively with them, 1 and the person or persons seeking
to negotiate with the employer must, on request, show to the employer
that they are the duly designated representatives of a ma-
VT In another case where an impasse had been reached in the negotiations the Board said :
"The respondent is a relatively small concern in the meat-producing industry. It ap
-pears
to us from the record that the respondent was sincere in its belief that it could not
conform to the Union scale of wages and hours and continue to operate successfully on a
competitive basis in the industry. The Union on the other hand, insisted that the respondent
sign the particular contract containing the Union wage scale and hours, maintaining
that the respondent's business was no different from that of others in the industry.
The differences which developed between the parties concerned real and substantial issues.
Although the respondent's position apparently precluded the particular collective agreement
sought by the Union, the respondent indicated a willingness to bargain with the.
Union on some other basis.
"Under these circumstances, we find that the respondent has not refused to bargain
collectively with the Union."
Matter of John Minder and Son, Inc., and Butchers Union, Local No. 174, 6 N. L. R. B. 764.
08 Matter of The Sands Manufacturing Company and Mechanics' Educational Society of
America, 1 N. L. R. B. 546. The order in this case was set aside by the Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, N. L. R. B. v. Sands Manufacturing Company, 96 F. (2d) 721
(C. C. A. 6th, 1938), certiorari granted by the Supreme Court of the United States,
59 S. Ct. 91 (Oct. 10, 1938). This Circuit Court based its decision on the ground, inter
alia, that the employer sincerely attempted over a long period to negotiate with the Union.
The Court stated the principle that the sincerity of the employer's effort is to be tested by the
length of time involved in the negotiations, their frequency, and the persistence with which
the employer offers opportunity for agreement.
Thus, in Matter of Huehne Manufacturing Company and Local No. I791 United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 7 N. L. R. B. 804, the Board said, in finding
a refusal to bargain :
"The respondent contended that it had bargained collectively with the employees on
March 22, the day of the beginning of the strike. But where in the course of a strike.
supervening events, such as the organization of a union, which demands recognition, or the
discharge of strikers, introduce new issues, the employer must meet with the representatives
of its employees in order to realize the full benefits of collective bargaining. [Citing Matter
of Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Company and Local No. 455, United Brick and Clay Workers of
America, 1 N. L. R. B. 618; Matter of Carlisle Lumber Company and "'umber and Sawmill
Workers Union, Local 2511, Onalaska, Washington, and Associated Employees of Onalaska,
Inc., intervener, 2 N. L. R. B. 248: Matter of S. L. Allen cE Company, Inc. and Federal
Labor Union, Local No. 18525, 1 N. L. R. B. 714.] This the respondent refused to do."
1 In Matter of Sheba Ann Frocks, Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union
of America, Locals 121 and sse, 5 N. L. R. B. 12, the Board found that the employer was not
compelled to engage in collective bargaining when the union representative made what was
merely a social call. The Board, in that case, said : "From all the evidence, we are of the
opinion that It was incumbent upon the Union to have used greater diligence or to have
made some effort to meet with the respondent immediately before or after it called the strike.
The evidence shows that immediately following the strike of February 11 the Union was
always ready and willing to negotiate with the respondent. However, the Union never,
by word or act, apprised the respondent of its desires."