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.

62 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF <strong>NATIONAL</strong> <strong>LABOR</strong> <strong>RELATIONS</strong> <strong>BOARD</strong><br />

100% to the laws of this count6. If by any chance 51% of our employees<br />

should join the Union, and their outside representative would call on us, an<br />

officer or representative of this company would naturally, under the law, bargain<br />

with him or them. I doubt however that my people would choose to have<br />

an outsider represent them.<br />

That same night the president addressed the knitters in the plant<br />

at midnight and, referring to the organizational efforts, said "I<br />

cleaned them out two years ago and I am going to clean them out<br />

again if I have to fire every damn man I have got * * * This<br />

is my plant, and I will run it the way I please." Earlier that same<br />

day an employee was discharged for union membership. The Board<br />

stated :<br />

Nebel's Christmas speech, as related in the testimony of the two employees,<br />

foreshadowed the hostility which the Union was to encounter. * * * We are<br />

convinced that the midnight session with the knitters was a step deliberately<br />

taken for the purpose of interfering with, restraining, and coercing these employees<br />

in rights which were secured them under the act. Nebel's attempt<br />

to portray this incident as a casual conversation between himself and the<br />

employees, to discuss provisions of the Act, is not borne out by the evidence.<br />

The hour of the conversation, his own presence, the discharge of Griffin earlier<br />

in the day, his knowledge that the Union organizers had been distributing<br />

circulars outside the mill, render such interpretation highly implausible. * * *<br />

We also view the use to which the respondent put the sheet "Facts about the<br />

Wagner Law" as interference and coercion of the same stamp. This unfair<br />

labor practice was rooted not so much in the distribution or contents, per .se,<br />

of the reprint, but in the statements of Nebel which accompanied distribution.<br />

The emphasis placed, in his letter to the employees, upon the words of the<br />

reprint that an employer had the right to select and discharge employees,<br />

followed, as it was, by Nebel's own words that "Personally, I don't deny the<br />

fact that I am against labor Unions," was well calculated to intimidate The<br />

concluding appeal of the letter, "I doubt however that my people would choose<br />

to have an outsider represent them," under the facts involved, was coercive<br />

* * *.<br />

7. MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 8 (1)<br />

The more common forms of employer action violative of the section<br />

have been dealt with above. The cases, however, contain considerable<br />

antiunion conduct which, while not as recurrent, nevertheless has<br />

been the subject of consideration by the Board. Thus section (1)<br />

WaS held violated by the employers' attempt to place limitations upon<br />

what representatives the employees should designate as their collective<br />

bargaining representative ; 52 and a similar attempt, although<br />

unsuccessful, to dictate to them the form of their labor organization,<br />

such as an "inside" union.53<br />

A discharge of workers for engaging in concerted activities unrelated<br />

to union organization may constitute an unfair labor practice<br />

under the section. In Matter of Indianapolis Glove Company, 54 employees<br />

were dismissed for engaging in a brief stoppage of work<br />

induced by a wage grievance. The Board's opinion pointed out :<br />

iv See Matter of Oregon Worsted Company and United Textile Workers of America,<br />

Local 205, 1 N. L. R. B. 916, order enforced in National Labor Relations Board v. Oregon<br />

Worsted Company, 96 F. (2d) 193 (C. C. A. 9th, 1938) ; Matter of Wallace Manufacturing<br />

Company, Inc., and Local No. 2237, United Textile Workers of America, 2 N. L. It. B. 1081,<br />

order enforced in National Labor Relations Hoard v. Wallace Mfg. Co., Inc., 95 F. (2d)<br />

818 (C. C. A. 4th, 1938).<br />

s' See Matter of Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation and Amalgamated Association of<br />

Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local 66, 5 N. L. R. B., enforcement denied<br />

on other grounds in Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board.<br />

98 F. (2d) 375 (C. C. A. 7th, 1938), certiorari granted November 19, 1938; Matter of<br />

United Carbon Company, inc., and Oil Workers International Union, Local 2,56 ., 7 N. L. R. B.<br />

598.<br />

54 Matter' of Indianapolis Glove Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,<br />

5 N. L. R. B. 231.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!