1 - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Enforcement Litigation 125 an appropriate unit within the range of several appropriate units in a given factual situation," the court noted that the unit was composed of employees who did similar work under similar circumstances and was headed by an official who directly controlled and supervised the day-to-day work of the employees. The next larger unit available under the employer's organizational structure would cover a multistate area. The court agreed with the Board that requiring a bargaining unit of this size would arrest the organizational development of insurance agents in highly centralized insurance companies and would deny such employees the "fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by the Act," which, under section 9(b) of the Act, the choice of an appropriate bargaining unit should be designed to assure. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Board's decision as to the appropriate unit was within its broad discretion. However, in Solis Theatre, 15 the Second Circuit rejected the Board's holding that a unit limited to one theatre in a chain of movie theatres throughout a metropolitan area was appropriate, where management functions were handled centrally, the pattern of unionization of the employer's other employees was circuitwide, the theatre was centrally located only a short distance from two of the employer's other theatres, and the local manager of the theatre had authority only to oversee the daily activities of the employees of that theatre, with little or no authority on labor policy, which was determined centrally for the entire circuit. Pointing out that other courts of appeals had been "reluctant to sanction bargaining units whose managers lack the authority to resolve issues which would be the subject of collective bargaining," the court found no "compelling reason" in this case which would justify fractionating an otherwise centrally controlled system of branch units. It therefore set aside the Board's order directing the employer to bargain with that unit of employees. In another case, 16 however, that court sustained the Board's determination that two separate units, each limited to one of an insurance company's claims offices, were appropriate. The court noted that, while final decisions concerning labor relations matters were made centrally, the supervisor of each claims office prossessed considerable influence in such decisions, and each office enjoyed complete control over the processing of the vast majority of claims. Characterizing the situation in Solis Theatre "N.L.R.B. v Solis Theatre Corp., 403 F.2d 381. "Continental Insurance Co. v. N.L.R.B , 409 F.2d 727 ((IA. 2), cert. denied 396 U.S. 902.
126 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board as "somewhat unusual," the court rejected an interpretation of that decision which would "permit any employer to impede unionization merely by centralizing final decisions on labor policies," and held that such centralization did not preclude establishment of a separate unit of an office where, as here, that office possessed substantial administrative autonomy in matters other than labor relations, temporary transfers between offices were infrequent, and the geographic compactness and established bargaining pattern among the other employees present in Solis Theatre were absent. In Harry T. Campbell Sons, 17 the Fourth Circuit rejected the Board's determination that a unit limited to the calcite operation at a stone quarry, and not including employees at other quarry facilities, was appropriate. In the court's view, all of the operations at the quarry should be regarded as a single plant whose separate processing operations were entirely dependent on the quarry as a source of supply, and as possessing "an extraordinary degree of integration and interdependence, both from an operational and personnel standpoint." It found this conclusion required by the proximity of the different operations, the substantial interchange and contact between the employees engaged in different operations, and the uniformity of job classifications and labor relations policies, common administration, and centralized control of management functions, not only at the quarry, but for all of the employer's facilities. In the court's opinion, allowing the calcite operation to form a separate unit would eliminate the possibility of effective and stable collective bargaining, since neither the union nor the employer could bargain concerning the calcite employees without considering the effect of any agreement reached on other employees at the quarry. Moreover, it found that creation of such a separate unit would impose the will of the calcite employees, who were only a minority of the employees at the quary, on the majority and deprive the majority of their freedom to choose their own representatives, since a strike by the calcite employees would undoubtedly severely disrupt the operations of the remaining facilities, causing economic hardship to employees not involved in the dispute but dependent upon the uninterrupted functioning of the quarry operations. Accordingly, the court concluded that the calcite operation was neither the appropriate unit nor an appropriate unit for collective bargaining, and denied enforcement of the 17 N.L.R.B v. Harry T Campbell Some Corp., 407 F2c1 969.
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:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
V Representation Cases The Act requ
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
VI Unfair Labor Practices The Board
Page 85 and 86: 74 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 135: 124 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 171 and 172: IX Injunction Litigation Section 10
Page 187 and 188:
176 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?