1 - National Labor Relations Board

24 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
sarily unlawful in its maintenance or performance merely because
its terms are not in writing." It emphasized, however, that
the parties to such agreement must satisfy a "stringent burden"
in establishing the existence and precise terms and conditions of
such an agreement and that the employees have been fully and
unmistakably notified concerning it.
d. Bargaining Obligation
Consistent with its Laidlaw decision, 5 holding that a replaced
economic striker retains his status as an employee and is entitled
to have his reinstatement request honored when openings become
available so long as he has not abandoned the employee of the employer,
the Board in the Pioneer Flour Mills case 6 held that
such replaced economic strikers are to be included in the unit
of the employer's employees for purposes of determining the
union's majority status. The employer had withdrawn recognition
from the incumbent union following an economic strike of short
duration because of his asserted doubt of the union's continued
majority in the unit, which he viewed as consisting of the employees
who did not join the strike together with the replacements
for the strikers. In holding that the replaced economic strikers
were to be counted in the unit for purposes of assessing the adequacy
of the basis of the employer's asserted doubt, the Board
noted that the replaced strikers had retained their status as employees,
had applied for reinstatement, and would have been
eligible under section 9(c) (3) to vote in an election had one been
held at the time of the termination of the strike withdrawal of recognition.
Evaluating the employer's basis for doubting the union's
majority in the light of a unit including the replaced strikers, the
Board found it inadequate and directed the employer to bargain
with the union.
The right of a duly designated employee representative to select
the members of its contract negotiating team was upheld
by the Board under the circumstances of a case 7 in which the
'representative had designated as nonvoting members of its team
individuals who were members of other unions who represented,
in separate bargaining units, other employees of the employer.
The unions had expressly disclaimed any intent to engage in coalition
bargaining or to bargain for employees represented by
any other union, and the employer had walked out of the bar-
' Laidlaw Corp., 171 NLRB No. 175; Thirty-third Annual Report (1958), p. 83.
'C H. Guenther & Son, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Flour Mills, 174 NLRB No 174, infra, p. 80.
'General Electric, 173 NLRB No. 46; see also Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 173
NLRB No. 47, infra, pp 8.1-82.