NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 107
In Matter of National Motor Bearing Company 7 the Board said:
The respondent thus signed ti contract with a union which did not represent,
and which it could not have thought represented, more than a handful of its
employees, if any, and at the same time turned its back on a union which
represented a majority of its employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, as well as a majority of the employees in any unit
which the respondent could have considered appropriate. We do not find that
the respondent, in the absence of more proof of the U. A. W. majority than was
here given, could not have asked for that proof before entering into negotiations.
But we do find that by hastily entering into a contract with the I. A. M., which
it at all times treated as a closed-shop contract, it announced its firm intention
to have nothing to do with the U. A. W. and precluded all further attempts on
the part of that union to secure the recognition to which it was entitled. Such
conduct constituted a refusal to bargain with the duly designated representative
of its employees in an appropriate unit, and was an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of the Act.
Where an employer refuses to bargain collectively for reasons not
related to the question of a majority, it may not later assert doubt
as to majority or failure of the union to prove its majority at the
time it sought to bargain as a justification for the refusal to bargain.8
In National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, Ine.,9 the
Court stated :
* * * even though the respondent were in doubt as to the Joint Board's authority,
that doubt did not excuse it; for it is quite plain that its position was
not based upon anything of the sort, but upon its unwillingness to treat with
"outside" representatives of its employees ; that is to say, to recognize the solidarity
of the craft as such. The greater included the less, and .having taken
that position, it may not now say that it could say that it could not know
for the comparative tally, without even bothering to check the claims of the opposing
union, and notwithstanding the pendency of an investigation of the Board, can hardly be
said to be comformable to the neutral policy the respondent says it has maintained."
In considering whether an employer has fulfilled its obligation of reasonably cooperating
with a union which is attempting to prove its majority, the Board has looked to the
treatment accorded a competing union. Thus, 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 pointed to the fact that the employer,
while insisting that the union which was the majority representative present it with a
Board certification, recognized a competing union and negotiated with it after the latter
union had merely shown its membership cards.
7 Matter of National Motor Bearing Company and International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, Local No. 76, 5 N. L. R. B. 409.
, In Matter of American Radiator Company, a Corporation, and Local Lodge No. 1770.
Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Affiliated
with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 7 N. L. R. B. 1127, the Board stated
that it was obviously futile for the Pinion to offer proof of its majority when the respondent
had given an entirely unrelated reason [a shut-down of the plant for its refusal
to bargain. The Board found that the employer had refused to bargain co lectively.
In Matter of Omaha Hat Corporation and United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers
International Union, Local Nos. 7 and 8, 4 N. L. R. B. 878, the Board said :
"The respondent contends that at the July 12 conference it requested proof of a majority
and was refused. • • * Even assuming that such a request was actually
made, it is apparent that it was not pressed and that it was a matter of complete indifference
to the respondent whether or not the Locals represented a majority. Ferzig
[the respondent's president] admitted telling the officers of the Locals that it was useless
to bargain because he was moving. Furthermore, there is not an iota of evidence that at
the conferences of August 24 and September 2. the respondent either challenged or denied
the claim that the Locals represented a majority."
In Matter of National Labor Relations Hoard v. Biles-Coleman Lumber Company, 96 F.
(2d) 197 (C. C. A. 9th, 1938), the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated
that it was not a defense for the respondent "to point out that the Union, in presenting
its proposed contract, did not claim to be the representative of the sawmill and factory employees
only, as distinguished from all respondent's workers. Respondent made no
objection to the contract on the basis of the propriety of the unit for which it was being
presented. The Board was entitled to draw the inference that respondent's refusal to
negotiate with the Union was motivated, not by doubt as to the appropriate unit. but by
a rejection of the collective bargaining principle. N. L. R. B. v. Remington Rand (CCA-2)
94 Fed. (2d)
894
862. 868."
F. (2d) 862 (C. C. A. 2d, 1938).
108817-38-8