NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

108 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whether the Joint Board was properly accredited. Had that been the real reason
for its refusal, presumably it would have been persuaded by the evidence
which the Joint Board could have presented. It made no effort to learn the
facts and took the chance of what they might be.
7. THE EFFECT OF A REFUSAL TO BARGAIN
in the period from July 1, 1937, through June 30, 1938, the Board
issued 44 orders, based upon findings that the employer had refused to
bargain collectively within the meaning of section 8 (5) of the act.1°
An examination of these cases reveals that in 21 of the 44 a strike followed
the refusal to bargain, in one case a lock-out followed the
refusal to bargain, and in another, the Board found that the refusal
to bargain prolonged an existing strike. In only six cases was
the employer's refusal to bargain the only unfair labor practice found
to have been committed. In the others. the employer was found to have
committed acts which constituted unfair labor practices within the
meaning of section 8 (2), (3), or (1), besides having refused to
bargain.
These figures verify the accuracy of the Congressional findings in
the act that, "The denial by employers of the right of employees to organize
and the refusal by employers to accept the procedure of collective
bargaining lead to strikes * * *." They indicate also that
recalcitrant employers have resorted to other unfair labor practices
so as to avoid the necessity of having to bargain collectively by destroying
the organization of their employees. This emphasizes the
fact that the other unfair labor practice specified in the act are intended
to safeguard the self-organization of the employees, to the end
that collective bargaining may be made possible. n-
D. DOMINATION AND INTERFERENCE WITH THE FORMATION OR AD-
MINISTRATION OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND CONTRIBUTING
FINANCIAL OR OTHER SUPPORT TO IT
I. INTRODUCTION
The vast increase in the number of cases involving charges under
section 8 (2) during the past fiscal year reflects the increase which
has occurred in all phases of the Board's work. During its first
10 This does not include 11 cases in which orders were issued by consent of the parties
or pursuant to stipulations. The figure also does not include Matter of Standard Lime ct
Stone Company and Branch No. 175, Quarry "Worker8 International Union of North America,
5 N. L. R. B. 106, and Matter of Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation and Amalgamated
Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local 66, 5 N. L. R. B. 930.
In both of these cases, the Board's order was set aside by a Circuit Court of Appeals.
In many cases, therefore, the Board has considered the other activities of the employer,
and has utilized this background as an aid in interpreting the conduct of the employer in
the determination of whether there had been a refusal to bargain. Cf. Matter of Arr,
Crayon Company, Inc. and Its Affiliated Company, American Artists Color Works, Inc. and
United Artists Supply Workers, 7 N. L. R. B. 102: Matter or Trenton-Philadelphia
Coach Company and 'Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employees of America, 6 N. L. R. B. 112; 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. 509. In National Labor Relations Board v. The Sands Manufacturing
Company, 96 F'. (2d) 721 (C. C. A. 6th, 1938), the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, in finding that there had been no refusal to bargain, referred to the background of
the employer's conduct :
"In view of the background, the tincontroverted facts as to the complete lack of any
attempt to prevent organization or to discourage affiliation with the M. E. S. A., the want
of espionage or coercion practiced on the part of the management, and the express findings
of the Board as to repeated conferences, honest differences of opinion, and diametrical
opposition of views, we think that only one conclusion can be drawn, namely, that the
respondent sincerely attempted over a long period to negotiate with the M. E. S. A."