1 - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Operations in Fiscal Year 1969 25 gaining sessions without waiting to see whether the union's demands and actions were consistent with its disclaimer. In holding that the mere presence of members of other unions on the negotiating committee of a representative does not justify a refusal to bargain, even though those individuals at another time may be negotiating directly for the employees their unions represent, the Board emphasized that the right of the representative to designate its bargaining team is directly derived from the employees' right under section 7 of the Act to "bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing." As such the right, although not absolute, it not to be qualified unless the choice of members of another union as negotiating representatives is made with an ulterior motive or in bad faith, or actually disrupted negotiations. The Board further held that abuse of the bargaining process is not inherent in an attempt at coordinated bargaining, and that abuse was not to be inferred, but must be established by substantial evidence of ulterior motive or bad faith, neither of which were present in the case before it. e. Union Fines The circumstances under which a union may impose fines upon its members as a means of enforcing adherence to union objectives was considered by the Board in two cases during the report year. In Toledo Blade 8 union action in imposing fines upon three of its members, the employer's superintendent and two foremen, for performing excessive work in violation of the contract was found to have violated section 8(b) (1) (B) by restraining the employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of negotiations and handling grievances. The union's assertion of disciplinary authority over the supervisors, who had substantial authority to handle grievances, was found to infringe upon the employer's right to control and rely on his representatives. The Board further held that even if the foremen had not actually served their employer as bargaining representatives, the employer was entitled to the protection of section 8(b) (1) (B) in his future designation of and reliance on representatives selected from an uncoerced group of supervisors qualified as representatives because of their day-to-day supervisory roles. A union which fined a member for crossing an economic picket line of a sister local placed at the employer's place of business was found by the Board to have thereby violated section 8(b) (1) R Toledo Locals 15—P & 272, Lithographers Union (Toledo Blade Co). 175 NLRB No. 173, infra, p. 98.
26 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board (A), where a no-strike clause in the fining union's contract would have prohibited such a work stoppage by its members in their own interest.9 The Board viewed the fine as union endorsement of the actions of its other members who refused to cross the line. It was thus in effect a penalty for refusing to participate in a work stoppage in violation of the no-strike clause of the union's own contract, and therefore not immune under the proviso to section 8(b) (1) (A). f. Common Situs Picketing The circumstances which satisfy the requirement of the presence of the "primary employer" at a common situs to render picketing there legitimate activity were further defined by the Board in the Auburndale Freezer case. 19 The picketing by employees of the primary employer of the site of an independently owned and operated freezer warehouse, where the primary employer delivered his product for storage until picked up by commercial carriers, was found in that case to be legitimate picketing in conformance with the Moore Dry Dock standards, even though no products were being delivered at the time of the picketing due to the strike. Although the freezer warehouse served many other employers, the Board found the primary employer constantly present there for purposes of the picketing. This finding was based upon the employer's long use of the warehouse, his long-term reservation of a large storage capacity, and the fact that his products were then stored at the warehouse, were regularly brought to the warehouse by his employees, and were shipped by the warehouse only in accordance with instructions from him. 4. Financial Statement The obligations and expenditures of the National Labor Relations Board for fiscal year ended June 30, 1969 are as follows : Personnel compensation $27,950,052 Personnel benefits 2,163,199 Travel and transportation of persons 1,391,815 Transportation of things 46,536 Rent, communications, and utilities 1,296,245 Printing and reproduction 472,271 Other services 1,007,596 Supplies and materials 291,813 9 Local 16419. United Mine Workers (Natl. Grinding Wheel Co.), 176 NLRB No. 89, infra, p. 97. w United Steelworkers of America, AFL—CIO, & Loc 6991 (Auburndale Freezer Corp.), 177 NLRB No. 108, tnfra, P. 103.
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 19 and 20: 1 8 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 21 and 22: 10 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of t
Page 27 and 28: PERCENT PERCENT 100 100 1111111 90
Page 35: 24 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of t
Page 39 and 40: II Jurisdiction of the Board The Bo
Page 55 and 56: V Representation Cases The Act requ
Page 83 and 84: VI Unfair Labor Practices The Board
Page 87 and 88:
76 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of t
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:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
100 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
VIII Enforcement Litigation Board o
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
IX Injunction Litigation Section 10
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
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?