1 - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Enforcement Litigation 139 that the employer had violated section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by withdrawing recognition from unions which had been certified for many years. The court pointed out that, after a union has been certified for 1 year, the presumption that the union's majority status continues can be rebutted by showing sufficient evidence to cast serious doubt on such majority status. The "serious doubt" standard requires that the employer have a reasonable basis in fact for doubting the union's majority status and assert such doubt in good faith. In this case, a substantial decrease in the number of checkoff authorizations, a memorandum from the local unions' attorney to the international union's president (which had come into the employer's possession) admitting that the unions lacked a majority, and the unions' failure to respond when the employer challenged the unions' majority status were sufficient to give the employer a reasonable basis for doubting the unions' majority status. While the better time for withdrawing recognition would have been when the union demanded bargaining for a new contract, the fact that the employer withdrew recognition after bargaining had commenced did not automatically show bad faith, especially where, as here, the employer had questioned the unions' majority status from the start of negotiations. Indeed, the court pointed out that the Supreme Court had suggested in Brooks 43 that the employer in such a situation should continue to bargain while petitioning the Board for a new election or other relief. To require a withdrawal of recognition at the earliest feasible time might cause a premature rupture in the bargaining relationship by precluding an employer from entering into a new contract in the expectation that the union would soon regain majority status. The court also emphasized that the unions, by submitting clearly unacceptable demands, effectively nullified the prior negotiations, so that the employer could properly assert its doubt as to the unions' majority status just as if negotiations had never commenced. In the court's view, the employer showing of serious doubt was not negated by any evidence that the employer intended to avoid reaching final agreement with the unions, nor had the employer engaged in independent unfair labor practices or other conduct aimed at causing disaffection from the unions. Consequently, in the absence of evidence that the unions actually enjoyed majority status, the finding of an 8 (a) (5) violation was not sustained. "Brooks v. N.L.R.B., 348 U.S. 96 (1954).
140 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board b. Coordination of Bargaining In the General Electric case, 44 the Second Circuit sustained the Board's finding that the employer violated section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with a union which represented some of its employees because the union's negotiating committee included members of other unions which represented other employees of the company in separate units. The court agreed with the Board that the right of employees under section 7 of the Act, and the corresponding right of employers, guaranteed by section 8(b) (1) (B), to choose their own representatives for collective-bargaining purposes, is fundamental to the statutory scheme; these rights, while not absolute, could be denied only when the selection of particular representatives created a clear and present danger to the collective-bargaining process. In the court's opinion, the mere presence of members of other unions on one union's negotiating committee did not inherently create such danger ; not all cooperation between unions is improper, and the Board's refusal to hold that the mixed-union committee was inherently improper, as long as it sought to bargain solely on behalf of the employees in the bargaining unit, was reasonable. In this case, the court held, the Board properly rejected the employer's contention that it was justified in refusing to meet with the mixed committee because the unions intended to bargain jointly and were locked into an agreement whereby the principal union would not accept any offer made by the employer until all unions accepted it. The employer, instead of testing the good faith of the unions, simply refused to bargain with the mixed committee until ordered to do so by a federal district court, despite the principal union's express disclaimer of any intention that the committee would bargain for employees outside the unit. When bargaining did commence, the committee did not attempt to bargain for employees represented by other unions, and the Board properly found that the employer had no sufficient basis for concluding that the committee planned to bargain improperly.45 However, the court rejected the Board's further finding that the employer's refusal to meet with the mixed committee 3 months before the period for reopening the contract to discuss preliminary matters was unlawful. In the court's opinion, since the company could have refused to agree to hold any preliminary meet- "General Electric Co. v. N.L.R.B., 412 F.2d 512. " The Eighth Circuit, agreeing with this reasoning, enforced the Board's order in a similar case, Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 415 F.2d 174.
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:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100: 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 149: 138 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 171 and 172: IX Injunction Litigation Section 10
Page 201 and 202:
190 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
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?