07.02.2015 Views

1 - National Labor Relations Board

1 - National Labor Relations Board

1 - National Labor Relations Board

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

98 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Labor</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> <strong>Board</strong><br />

threatened disciplinary action over disagreements involving contract<br />

interpretations and grievance adjustments. Noting,,iPlat<br />

section 8 (b) (1) (B) was enacted to prevent union interfence<br />

with an employer's control over its own representatives, the<br />

<strong>Board</strong> found the prohibition no less applicable because the union<br />

sought the substitution of attitudes rather than persons, and<br />

exerted its pressure on the employer through indirect rather<br />

than direct means. As the pressure was in fact exerted for the<br />

purpose of interfering with the employer's control over his representatives,<br />

the <strong>Board</strong> held the conduct fell outside the legitimate<br />

internal interests of the union and therefore violated<br />

section 8(b) (1) (B). In Toledo Blade, 71 union action in imposing<br />

fines upon three of its members, the employer's superintendent<br />

and two foremen, for performing excessive work in violation of<br />

the contract was found to have violated section 8(b) (1) (B) by<br />

restraining the employer in the selection of his representatives<br />

for the purposes of negotiations and handling grievances. The<br />

union's assertion of disciplinary authority over the supervisors,<br />

who had substantial authority to handle grievances, was found<br />

to infringe upon the employer's right to control and rely on his<br />

representatives. The <strong>Board</strong> further held that even if the foremen<br />

had not actually served their employer as bargaining representatives,<br />

the employer was entitled to the protection of section<br />

8(b) (1) (B) in his future designation and reliance upon representatives<br />

selected from an uncoerced group of supervisors qualified<br />

as representatives because of their day-to-day supervisory<br />

roles.<br />

In other cases the <strong>Board</strong> held a union violated section 8(b) (1)<br />

(B) by fining a member of the union employed as a construction<br />

superintendent for having urged employees to vote against the<br />

union in an upcoming <strong>Board</strong> election, 72 and by fining a member<br />

for reporting to work as a supervisor without having obtained<br />

job clearance and referral from the union, for working thereafter<br />

for an employer who did not contribute to the union health and<br />

welfare fund, and for failing to cease work when requested to<br />

do so by the union's business agent.73<br />

3. Union Rules and the Duty of Fair Representation<br />

The actions of labor organizations in enforcement of union<br />

rules establishing conditions of employment for its members,<br />

71 Toledo Locale I5—P & 272, Lithographers (Toledo Blade Co.), 175 NLRB No. 173.<br />

72 New Mexico District Council (A.S. Horner), 176 NLRB No. 105.<br />

"New Mexico District Councll (A.S. Horner), 177 NLRB No. 76.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!