07.02.2015 Views

1 - National Labor Relations Board

1 - National Labor Relations Board

1 - National Labor Relations Board

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

52 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Labor</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> <strong>Board</strong><br />

election based on conduct occurring prior to the filing of the<br />

petition, (2) that the assisted union could appear on the ballot<br />

and be certified if it won, and (3) that, if the assisted union<br />

was certified, no further action be taken to enforce the <strong>Board</strong>'s<br />

order on the 8(a) (2) violations. In the exercise of its discretion<br />

to approve the waiver, the <strong>Board</strong> concluded that under the<br />

circumstances a further delay in affording the employees an<br />

opportunity to select a representative was not warrented. Relying.<br />

as a precedent for its action on the Carlson Furniture case,24<br />

where it accepted a written request to proceed where the remedy<br />

for the 8(a) (2) violation merely required the withdrawing and<br />

withholding of recognition, the <strong>Board</strong> concluded that the dues<br />

disgorgement requirement of the remedy in this case did not<br />

require a different result. It pointed out that neither the waiver<br />

nor the results of an election if directed would affect the <strong>Board</strong>'s<br />

right to enforcement of the disgorgement remedy and that its<br />

acceptance of the request to proceed should not be so construed.<br />

As the election thus could not affect in any manner the reimbursement<br />

of moneys collected under the illegal contract, the<br />

<strong>Board</strong> rejected a contention that the petitioning unions could<br />

claim that the dues disgorgement would follow only if the petitioning<br />

unions, and not the assisted one, were selected by the<br />

employees. It emphasized that the "specified condition for a request<br />

to proceed as it relates to the concurrent complaint case<br />

is the affirmative indication by the petitioner-charging party of<br />

a willingness to withdraw an 8(a) (2) assistance charge in the<br />

event the subject union is certified. Approval of any withdrawal<br />

remains in the <strong>Board</strong>'s discretion. . . ." 25<br />

C. Units Appropriate for Bargaining<br />

1. Single-Location Units in Multiple-Location Enterprises<br />

The appropriateness of a unit of employees at a single location<br />

in a retail store chain or other multiple-location enterprise<br />

was again 26 an issue in cases considered by the <strong>Board</strong> during the<br />

report year. In the May Department Store case, 27 the petitioning<br />

union sought separate units at each of 3 of the employer's 12<br />

24 157 NLRB 851 (1966).<br />

22 Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown, Jenkins, and Zagoria for the majority. Member<br />

Fanning, dissenting, would not grant a waiver unless the results of the election would dispose<br />

of the entire proceeding, which it did not do in this case.<br />

24 See Thirty-third Annual Report (1968) , pp. 51-53; Thirty-second Annual Report (1967),<br />

pp. 58-61.<br />

27 175 NLRB No. 97.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!