1 - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Enforcement Litigation 143 sustained Board findings that employers were required to give unions the names and addresses of all employees in their respective bargaining units. In the Standard Oil case, 51 almost half of the employees in the bargaining unit were not members of the union ; their residences were scattered over an area of several counties and the union had no satisfactory way of communicating with them. Moreover, the employer used its facilities to inform new employees that it considered a union unnecessary and to tell all employees its position on matters at issue in collective bargaining. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the Board properly held that the union needed the employees' addresses to determine their preferences and priorities in contract negotiations, their experience and recommendations with respect to the operation of the grievance arbitration machinery, and whether a majority favored acceptance of a particular contract term or were willing to strike over that term. In the court's view, the employer must have known that the union wanted the requested information for collective-bargaining purposes. Unless the bargaining was to be completely one-sided, the union had to know the persons for whom it was bargaining, so that it could present its arguments to them and learn their opinions. In the Prudential Insurance case, 52 the bargaining unit contained over 16,000 employees scattered throughout most of the nation, almost half of whom were not members of the union, and many of whom worked in offices where there were no union members. Moreover, the rate of turnover, both among employees generally and among union members, was very high. The Second Circuit held that the union's need under these circumstances for the names and addresses of employees was far greater than that of the union in Standard Oil, and accordingly enforced the Board order directing production of the names and addresses. The court concluded that the alternative means of communication suggested by the employer—bulletin boards, grievance committees, hand distribution of messages, and union meetings—were inadequate, either separately or in combination, in light of the geographically scattered nature of the unit, the number of offices without any union members, contractual limitations on communication with employees in offices, and the employer's practice of not informing new employees about the union. It found the result to be that many employees were unaware that a union represented 51 Standard 0,1 Co of Calif. v. N L.R B., 399 F.2d 689 (C A. 9) 52 Prudential Insurance Co. v. N.L.R.B., 412 F.2d 77 (C.A. 2).
144 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board them, had negotiated a collective-bargaining agreement in their behalf, and would enforce their rights under it. On the issue of relevance, the court pointed out that the union had a statutory duty to represent fairly all employees in the bargaining unit, including those who were not union members, and that this obligation applied both to the negotiation of new contracts and to the administration of collective agreements already adopted. Clearly, the union could not discharge this obligation unless it was able to communicate with those in whose behalf it acted. Thus, a union must be able to inform the employees of its negotiations with the employer and obtain their views as to bargaining priorities in order to take a position reflecting their wishes. Similarly, to administer an existing agreement effectively, a union must be able to inform employees of the benefits to which they are entitled under the contract and of its readiness to enforce compliance with the agreement for their protection. Indeed, in the court's opinion, the information sought by the union had an even more fundamental relevance than information such as wage data, which has been held to be presumptively relevant. The court pointed out that wage data is needed by the union to bargain intelligently on specific issues of concern to the employees, whereas, without the information sought here, the union could not even communicate with the employees whom it represented. Accordingly, the information was held to be necessary for the union to perform its entire range of statutory duties in a truly representative fashion and in harmony with the employees' desires and interests, and no special showing that the list of names and addresses was relevant to a specific bargaining function was necessary. In another case, 53 the court sustained a Board finding that an employer violated the Act when, while furnishing the union with data concerning its parent company, it refused to furnish information concerning the division with which the union was bargaining. It explained that although the parent company was making money, the division was not, and the division had to stand on its own and could not remain competitive if it agreed to the union's economic demands. The District of Columbia Circuit sustained the Board's finding that the employer was, in effect, contending that the division was unable to pay for the increased economic benefits sought by the union ; the claim of inability to compete was merely the explanation of the reason why the company could not afford the economic benefit. Accordingly, the court '3 United Steelworkers Loc. 5571 (Stailley-Artex Windows] v. N.L.R.B., 401 F.2d 434.
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:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104: 92 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 153: 142 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 171 and 172: IX Injunction Litigation Section 10
Page 205 and 206:
194 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
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?