1 - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Unfair Labor Practices 89 that the employer and union had reached a stalemate concerning the employer's proposed modifications. The Board pointed out that under section 8(d) the union's consent was required if management's proposed modifications were to take effect, and when the union lawfully withheld its assent, a stalemate resulted. However, although an employer may unilaterally institute change when an impasse occurs during the negotiations for an initial bargaining agreement or following the expiration date of an expiring contract, the Board found that an employer may not do so where, as here, the contract had not yet terminated. Accordingly, the employer was not free to modify the unexpired agreement over the union's objections, but was obligated to maintain in effect all preexisting contractual commitments for the contract term. In another case 49 where a reopener clause of a bargaining contract and an exception to the contract's no-strike clause were limited to matters concerning wages and job classifications, and a related provision for automatic expiration in the event the parties failed to reach an agreement in 60 days was similarly limited to wages and classifications, the Board held that the employer did not unlawfully refuse to bargain with the union about other matters after 60 days of bargaining about wages and classifications had passed without agreement having been reached, and employees had struck in support of their demands. As the union had not given the employer notice that it desired to cancel the entire contract, as was required by a general termination clause contained in the contract, the contract remained in force in all respects other than wages and job classifications, and the employer was under no duty to bargain about other subjects. 6. Disregard for Board Designated Representative A number of cases decided during the report year involved attempts on the part of labor organizations to compel employers to bargain with them rather than with the Board certified employee representatives, or attempts on the part of employers to disregard such representatives and act unilaterally or after dealing directly with the employees, to change their terms and conditions of employment. In one case, 5° a union sought to file grievances with an em- 49 Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Co., 173 NLRB No. 178. 5° Small. Steel Workers, Directly Affiliated Labor Union 19806 (A. 0 Smith Corp.), 174 NLRB No. 41.
90 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board ployer over the employer's recognition of another union as the bargaining representative of certain employees. Those employees had been represented by this union, prior to the time when the Board, in a unit clarification proceeding 51 during the term of the union's contract with the employer, held that the employees in question should be included in the unit represented by the other union. When the employer ref used to submit the matter to arbitration, the union filed a suit in a Federal district court under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act to compel arbitration." The Board 53 concluded that these actions amounted to adamant insistence by the union that the employer continue to bargain with it for a unit which the Board had already found inappropriate, and hence constituted a refusal to bargain in violation of section 8(b) (3) of the Act. In General Transformer Co.,54 the employer had refused to grant a wage increase demanded by the international union certified as the bargaining representative of its employees unless the union agreed to an extension of the contract, which was executed in the name of a local union affiliated with the international, and approved as to content and form by the international. When the international union refused to agree to extend the contract, the employer met with the bargaining committee of the local union, which agreed to the extension. The resulting agreement was signed by the employer and the local union, but was never presented to the international for signature. The Board, 55 noting that it was the international union which had always negotiated with the employer, and that the employer had never questioned the international's status as the employees' bargaining representative, pointed out that the employer had, in effect, dealt directly with its employees, and had unilaterally offered them a wage increase greater than that offered the international union. Such bypassing of the bargaining representa- 5' A. 0. Smith Corp., 166 NLRB 845 (1967), discussed in Thirty-third Annual Report (1968), p. 58. 52 The district court's decision in this suit, in which the Board intervened as a defendant, is discussed in Thirty-third Annual Report (1968), pp. 177-178. " Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins for the majority. Chairman McCulloch and Member Zagoria, dissenting, were of the view that the union's actions were merely designed to enable it to exercise its lawful privilege to institute a law suit under sec. 301 to compel arbitration, since the attempt to exhaust the grievance-arbitration provisions of the contract was a prerequisite to the filing of such a suit under the Supreme Court's decisions in Drake Bakeries v. Bakery Workers, 370 U.S. 254, and Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650. " 173 NLRB No. 61. "Members Brown, Jenkins, and Zagoria for the majority. Chairman McCulloch and Member Fanning, dissenting, viewed the contract, as well as various intraunion documents, as indicating that the local union had been substituted for the international as the employees' bargaining representative, so that the employer could properly bargain with the local.
Page 1 and 2:
TMR.TY-FOURM ANNUAL REPORT
Page 4:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Memb
Page 8 and 9:
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. Oper
Page 10:
Table of Contents ix Page 1. Preser
Page 13 and 14:
2 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of th
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
1 8 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 21 and 22:
10 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of t
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
PERCENT PERCENT 100 100 1111111 90
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
II Jurisdiction of the Board The Bo
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50: 38 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of t
Page 55 and 56: V Representation Cases The Act requ
Page 83 and 84: VI Unfair Labor Practices The Board
Page 99: 88 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of t
Page 111 and 112: 100 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 129 and 130: VIII Enforcement Litigation Board o
Page 151 and 152:
140 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
IX Injunction Litigation Section 10
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Table 3A.—Formal Actions Taken in
Page 213 and 214:
Table 4.—Remedial Actions Taken i
Page 215 and 216:
Table 5.—Industrial Distribution
Page 217 and 218:
Table 6.—Geographic Distribution
Page 219 and 220:
Table 7.-Analysis of Methods of Dis
Page 221 and 222:
it! All C cases CA cases CB cases C
Page 223 and 224:
Stage of disposition ' Table 8.-Dis
Page 225 and 226:
Table 10.-Analysis of Methods of Di
Page 227 and 228:
Table 11A.—Analysis of Elections
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Table 13.-Final Outcome of Represen
Page 233 and 234:
Participating unions AFL-CIO v. AFL
Page 235 and 236:
Table 14.-Valid Votes Cast in Repre
Page 237 and 238:
Participating unions AFL-CIO v. AFL
Page 239 and 240:
Table 15.-Geographic Distribution o
Page 241 and 242:
144 0 Table 16.-Industrial Distribu
Page 243 and 244:
1.) LA, iv Table 17.-Size of Units
Page 245 and 246:
Table 18.-Distribution of Unfair La
Page 247 and 248:
Table 19.-Litigation for Enforcemen
Page 249 and 250:
Table 20.—Injunction Litigation U
Page 251:
show all

1 - National Labor Relations Board

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?