07.02.2015 Views

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 159<br />

In Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Com,pany 82 doubt<br />

arose after the issuance of the original Decision and Direction of Elections<br />

as to the propriety of including certain employees in the plant<br />

unit. The election showed that the votes of these employees could<br />

not affect the majority secured by one of the unions involved. The<br />

Board stated :<br />

In order to facilitate collective bargaining and to extend to the employees<br />

as quickly as possible the benefits of the collective bargaining that has already<br />

taken place, the Board will issue a certification applicable to the employees<br />

other than those in these five categories. When the Board has made a final<br />

determination as to the status of assistant foremen, inspectors, graduate students,<br />

indentured apprentices and cooperative students, it will, if it finds that<br />

any of these groups are to be included within the appropriate unit, issue<br />

another certification embodying that finding.'3<br />

The fact that all of the parties to a proceeding are agreed as to<br />

the extent of the unit has usually been treated by the Board as decisive.<br />

This agreement may appear in a stipulation entered into<br />

between the parties,84 or in the testimony or statements of representatives<br />

of the parties at the hearing before a trial examiner. 85 In<br />

cases involving an alleged violation of section 8 (5) of the act by<br />

refusal to bargain collectively, the agreement of the respondent<br />

may appear from its failure to question the appropriate unit alleged<br />

in the Board's complaint s° However, the mere absence of contention<br />

does not require the Board to accept the unit assumed by the<br />

parties to be appropriate. It may of its own motion exclude from<br />

the unit employees which it believes should not be included.87<br />

In a limited number of situations, the Board has found that it can<br />

formulate rules which apply in the absence of factors tending to make<br />

them inapplicable. An example of this manner of treatment may be<br />

seen in Matter of Tennessee Copper Company. 88 There the chief<br />

point at issue with regard to the appropriate unit was whether or not<br />

the company's employees should be divided into three units on a<br />

" Matter of Anis-Chaimers Manufacturing Company and International Union, United<br />

Automobile 'Yorkers of America, Local 248, 4 N. L. R. B. 159.<br />

83 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives, 5 N. L. R. B. 158.<br />

" Matter of Goldstein Hat Manufacturing Company and United Hatters, Cap and MiUinery<br />

Workers International Union, Local 57, 4 N. L. R. B. 125 (employees listed) ; Matter<br />

of Southgate-Nelson Corporation and American Radio Telegraphists' Association, 4 N. L.<br />

R. B. 307; Matter of John Morrell cf Co. and United Packing House Workers, Local Industrial<br />

Union No. 32, 4 N. L. R. B. 436 (employees listed) ; Matter of Loose-Wiles Biscuit<br />

Co., Inc. and United Bakery and Confectionery Workers, 5 N. L. R. B. 59; Matter of<br />

International Harvester Company and Die Sinkers Local No. 527, Affiliated With the American<br />

Federation of Labor, 6 N. L. R. B. 545; Matter of Horton Manufacturing Company<br />

and United Electrical tE Radio Workers of America, Local 9,94, 7 N. L. R. B. 5; and<br />

Matter of Richardson Company and Employees Union, 7 N. L. R. B. 1113. In the<br />

latter case the Board stated that since the stipulated unit was "the same unit which was<br />

found to be appropriate by us in the previous case involving the company, we see no<br />

reason for changing the unit • • •." In this and the following two footnotes we<br />

mention only a few illustrative cases.<br />

" Matter of Eagle-Phenix Mills and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 4 N. L. R.<br />

B. 966; Matter of Ingram Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee,<br />

5 N. L. R. B. 908; and Matter of Brown-Saltman Furniture Company and United<br />

Furniture Workers of America, Local No. 576, C. I. O., 7 N. L. R. B. 1174.<br />

8, Matter of Omaha Hat Corporation and United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers<br />

International Union, Local Nos. 7 and 8, 4 N. L. R. B. 878; and Matter of Kuehne Manufacturing<br />

Company and Local No. 2791, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of<br />

America, 7 N. L. R. B. 304.<br />

al Matter of American France Line et al. and International Seamen's Union of America,<br />

3 N. L. It. B. 64; and Matter of Star if Crescent Oil Co., a California corporation, doing<br />

business as San Diego Marine Construction Company, and International Association of<br />

Machinists, Local No. 389; Shipwrights, Boatbuilders and Caulkers ; and International<br />

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 569, 3 N. L. It. B. 882.<br />

ss Matter of Tennessee Copper Company and A. F. of L. Federal Union No. 2114<br />

5 N. L. R. B. 768.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!