NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

106 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
jority of its employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. This does
not mean, however, that the union is compelled to present a Board
certification to the employer.2
The Board has held that the employer is under the correlative
obligation of cooperating with the union to a reasonable extent when
the latter is attempting to prove its majority.3 In Matter of McNeely
& Price Company,4 the union, though refusing to permit the employer's
attorney to inspect the union membership cards, suggested
two methods of resolving the uncertainty as to its majority status,
namely, an inspection of the cardsby agents of the Board and a consent
election conducted by the Board's regional director. Both of
these suggestions were rejected by the employer. The Board, characterizing
the suggested methods as reasonable, held that, under
those circumstances, the employer could not claim in good faith that
its uncertainty as to the union's majority justified its refusal to
bargain.5
In two instances, the employer entered into a closed-shop contract
with a competing union before the union which was in fact the majority
representative had had an opportunity to prove its majority,
and at a time when the respondent was in doubt as to the majority
representative. The Board held that the employer's action constituted
a refusal to bargain with the duly designated representative of
its employees.°
National Labor Relations Board V. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. (2d) 862 (C. C. A. 2d,
1938), enforcing order in Matter of Remington Rand, Inc. and Remington Rand Joint Protective
Board of the District Council Office Equipment Workers, 2 N. L. R. B. 626.
In Matter of Burnside Steel Foundry Company and Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel, and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge No. 1719, 7 N. L. R. B. 714, the Board
found that :
"The Amalgamated attempted in good faith to convince the respondent it represented a
majority of the employees. Its proposal mentioned above was apparently a' fair, practicable,
and not unduly burdensome method of substantiating its contention. The respondent's
officials simply rejected it, making no counter-proposal other than that the A malgamated
obtain the Board's certification. Even according to Wardwell's [the president of the
respondent] testimony they indicated no respect in which they considered the method
proposed by the Amalgamated unsatisfactory, but merely stated that the respondent would
submit its pay roll to the Board only under compulsion. In the circumstances here set
forth the respondent's duty to bargain collectively included the duty to cooperate with the
Amalgamated to a reasonable extent in an inquiry as to that organization's claim to have
been designated as exclusive bargaining representative., The respondent could not with
impunity capriciously refuse to submit its pay roll to a representative of an agency such
as the Board. If the method proposed by the Amalgamated to prove its majority was for
any reason unsatisfactory, the respondent, if acting in good faith, would have stated such
reason to the committee. It would, furthermore, not have taken the position that it
would be satisfied with no evidence short of the Board's certificate [citing National Labor
Relations Board V. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. (C. C. A. 2d, 1938)], and it will be noted
that it did not take such a position when dealing with the foundry workers only 9 days
later. We are convinced that in its negotiations with the Amalgamated the respondent
did not attempt to carry out its duty to cooperate in determining who represented the
employees, but sought only to obstruct and delay the Amalgamated efforts to bargain for
the employees. The respondent's alleged ignorance of the Amalgamated's status, therefore,
could not constitute a justification for its failure to bargain with the Amalgamated as the
employees' exclusive representative."
Cf. Matter of Stackpole Carbon Company and United Electrical & Radio Workers of
America, Local No. 502, 6 N. L. R. B. 171.
*Matter of McNeely & Price Company and National Leather Workers Association, Local
No. 30, of the C. I. 0., 6 N. L. R. B. 800.
6 In Matter of Piqua Munising Wood Products Company and Federal Labor Union Local
18787, 7 N. L. R. B. 782, the Board asserted that the employer's contention that it was
reluctant to recognize the Union in the absence of proof that the Union represented a
majority of the employees carried no weight, in view of the employer's refusal to agree to a
consent election.
Matter of National Motor Bearing Company and International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, Local No. 76, 5 N. L. R. B. 409: Matter of Zenite Metal Corporation
and United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 442, 5 N. L. R. B. 609. In
the latter case the Board pointed out that "the respondent had realized that it could not
determine which union had a majority ; had seen the utility of an unbiased count, and
had taken the initiative in asking both unions to submit to such a check. To sign a
closed-shop contract with the union which had consistently refused to submit its cards