1 - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 95
of the transfer of stock with respect to the employees' job tenure.
Accordingly the unilateral termination was found unlawful, despite
the absence of evidence that it was discriminatorily motivated,
and the employer was ordered to reinstate, with backpay,
those terminated employees who had not been reinstated.
In Tom-A-Hawk Transit, 64 a city bus company franchised by
the state commission went out of business for economic reasons,
and was replaced by a new company, authorized directly by city
governmental authorities, which operated on essentially the same
routes and employed a majority of the same employees, but with
new buses operating out of a different garage and charging
different fares. The Board held that the question was not whether
the employment enterprise remained substantially the same. In
the instant case, the fact that the new company did not purchase
any of the old one's assets was not viewed as controlling,
since a majority of the same employees were doing the same
work and the new company, like the old, was engaged on one
business—transportation of the public along city streets. Accordingly,
the Board found that there had been no change in
the employment enterprises and the new company was obligated
to bargain with the union which had represented the employees
of the old company.
In Westinghouse Electric 65 the Board held that the employer
was not obligated to bargain with the union representing employees
at one of its plants concerning the transfer of some of
those employees to a new plant to which the employer moved
part of the operations formerly performed at the old plant. Nor
was it obligated to bargain with the union as the representative
of the employees at the new plant. On the first point, the Board
found that, while the work formerly done at the old plant had
been transferred, no employee at that plant had been laid off
or downgraded because of the transfer, since all continued to be
employed doing other work. Moreover, the employees who transferred
did so voluntarily and with the full knowledge and consent
of the union, which remained the bargaining representative
at the old plant. There was no contention that the employer had
failed to bargain about the establishment of the new plant or
the transfer of work to that plant. Accordingly, the transfer of
employees to the new plant did not affect the old plant, and the
employer was not required to bargain about it.
i
As to the second point, the Board held that the new plant
64 174 NLRB No. 24.
66 174 NLRB No. 95.