NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 69
union; 87 where the employer discriminated against employees who
actively opposed the organization of a union supported by the employer;
88 and where the employer discriminated against employees
who strove to free a company-supported union from company domination."
In the latter case the Circuit Court of Appeals, in enforcing
the Board's order, stated :
The protest by the seven committee members shows an attempt by the seven
and, through them, the Association, to be free of employer control. The discharge
shows that such freedom was not obtained. A discriminatory discharge
may just as well be directed toward domination of a labor organization as toward
a dissolution or driving out of a labor organization. The distinction is
clearly brought out in the case at bar. Both Union men and Association men
were discharged by this respondent. After such discharges the Union was
driven out or underground, but the Association continued to function with the
permission and facilities of the employer. Clearly the discharges were motivated
by a desire to destroy the Union and to destroy the militancy and independence
of the Association, but not the Association itself."
Matter of Highway Trailer Company 91- illustrates another method
of discrimination. The employer agreed to discharge any employee
whom the company-dominated union deemed undesirable. A discharge
pursuant to the direction of this union was found to be in
violation of the section. The Board has reached the same result
where the favored union, although not company-dominated, was assisted
by other unfair labor practices," and where the favored union
was not otherwise assisted by unfair labor practices."
The Board has rejected several attempts to justify a discrimination
where it is contended that the union activity is inimical to the
employer's business. The employer's ulterior motive, what it thought
its business interest, cannot justify antiunion discrimination in the
face of the policy of the act and its legislative findings." In Matter
of The Associated Press," the employer discharged an employee for
union activity, claiming that the discharge was privileged because the
peculiar nature of the business, requiring accuracy in news gathering
and freedom of the press, made it necessary that the employer be
free to discriminate on the ground of union membership. The Board
in overruling the defense stated:
Yet the policy of the act seems clearly applicable to the situation here disclosed;
and, pursuant to its policy, accuracy, or other requirements of this form
of employment would appear not to be hampered, but even promoted by the
presence of contented employees under labor relations determined by the Congress
to be generally desirable, and freedom of the press would be facilitated
by a freedom of organization granted to its highest skilled equally with its
other employees."
87 Matter of The Triplett Electrical Instrument Company. etc., and United Electrical and
Radio Workers of America, Local No. 7/4, 5 N. L. R. B. 835.
" Matter of David E. Kennedy, Tao, and Isidore Greenberg, 6 N. L. R. B. 699.
" Matter of American Potash d Chemical Corporation and Boram and Potash Workers
Union No 20181, 3 N. L. R. B. 140. enforced in National Labor Retatio-ns Board v. American
Potash and Chemical Corporation, 98 F. (2d) 488, (C. C. A. 9th, 1938).
so Ibid.
Matter of Highway Trailer Company and United Automobile Workers of America, Local
No. 136, and Local No. 136, 3 N. L. R. B. 591. enforced in National Labor Relations Board v.
Highway Trailer Company, 95 F. (2d) 1012 (C. C. A. 7th, 1938).
"See cases cited below. p. 90. notes 25. 26.
"Matter of Frederick R. Barrett and International Longshoremen's Association, Local
No. 978, g N. L. R. B. 513. For a discussion of closed shop agreements see below, p. 88.
"Sec. 1.
"Matter of The Associated Press and American Newspaper Guild, 1 N. L. R. B. 788,
enforced in Associated Pre q8 V. National Labor Relations Board, 301 U. S. 103 (1937).
" Also, Matter of Fruehauf Trailer Company and United Automobile Workers Federal
Labor Union, eta. 1 N. L. R. B. 68, enforced in National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf
Trailer Company, 301 U. S. 49 (1037)•