1 - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Enforcement Litigation 135 In one, 34 an international union set up a council for the sugar industry to coordinate and control the activities of the affiliated locals which represented employees in that industry. It also directed those locals to affiliate with the council which then obligated the employees to pay dues to the council. Under the council's constitution, the locals could not propose any item to employers in contract negotiations without advance approval from the council, or call a strike without the council's authorization, and the council was to be a party to all collective-bargaining agreements negotiated by the locals. The members of the local representing the employer's employees twice voted not to affiliate with the council, and paid their dues to the council only when the employer, at the council's insistence, threatened to discharge them. The court, in sustaining the Board's finding that the threats violated section 8(a) (3), pointed out that that section authorizes contracts requiring union membership as condition of employment only if the union is "the representative of the employees as provided in section 9(a)," and that, to safeguard employees' rights, such representative status must be deemed to exist only when the majority of employees in a unit have freely and unambiguously accepted a union as their representative. It found that the members of the local here clearly had not explicitly designated the council as their representative, nor could it be said that the rule of the council in contract negotiations amounted to an indirect designation of the council as the employees' bargaining representative. The contract was ambiguous as to whether the council could invoke the unionsecurity clause, and it was not clear that the employees, in ratifying the agreement, were aware of the role played by the council during the negotiations. Viewing the council's role to be that of a servicing or coordinating body, representing the international union's interests rather than those of the local union's members, the court concluded that such a role could not be equated with that of the designated bargaining representative of the employees. Holding also that the employer's good-faith belief that the council had been properly designated as the employee's bargaining representative was not a defense when that was in fact not the case, the court sustained the Board's finding that the employer violated section 8(a) (3) by threatening to discharge the employees unless they paid their dues to the council. 34 N.L.R.B. v. SuCrest Corp., 909 F.2d 765. 384-517 0 - 70 - 10
136 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board In the other case, 35 in which the employer's reasonable grounds for belief was relevant, the court rejected the Board's conclusion that an employer had violated section 8(a) (3) by discharging employees for failure to pay dues where the employees had tendered their dues and initiation fees to the union, only to have the tender rejected because they refused to also sign union membership cards. The court pointed out that an employer is liable under section 8(a) (3) only if he discriminates against an employee for failure to pay dues when he has "reasonable grounds" to believe that the union has requested the employee's discharge for reasons other than failure to tender the uniformly required periodic dues and initiation fees. While this proviso clearly prohibits employers from meekly complying with union demands which are obviously illegal, the court concluded that it is not clear how much specific information as to the illegality of the union's request must be communicated to the employer in order to require him to make further inquiry. Under the circumstances of this case, however, the court found that the vague contentions of the employees that they had tendered the dues were insufficient to require the employer to suspect that the union's demands were illegal. The employer knew that the employees were hostile to the union and supported a rival union ; when the union first requested their discharge, they indicated clearly that they were entirely unwilling to become members on any basis whatever ; and the union's initial letter requesting discharge affirmatively stated that the membership requirement would be fully met if dues and initiation fees were paid. Moreover, the employer only discharged the employees 3 months after the union's request when a court order enforced an arbitrator's award requiring their discharge. There was no indication that the employer had been hostile, to, or interfered with, the dissidents' rival union activity and the court considered the fact that other dissident employees had joined the union, as one which might well have strengthened the employer's belief that the remaining employees' troubles were due to their hostility to the union, rather than to its discrimination against them. In concluding that, under the circumstances, the employer had no duty to investigate the situation further, the court observed that to determine whether a tender of dues had been made would have required an extensive investigation which might well have been fruitless, and even if it were clear that tender had been made, there remained complex legal issues, con- "N.L.R.B. v. Zoe Chemical Co., 406 F.Zd 674.
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:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96: 84 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 145: 134 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 171 and 172: IX Injunction Litigation Section 10
Page 197 and 198:
186 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
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?