1 - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Unfair Labor Practices 73 tions of section 8(a) (1) of the Act were among the numerous cases considered by the Board involving employer interference with employee rights guaranteed by section 7 of the Act. In Sylvania Electric Products 2 the employer discharged a vending machine serviceman upon the complaint of one of its customers that the servicemen had expressed prounion sentiments to the employees at the customer's plant where a union organizing • campaign was underway. The discharge was for violation of the company's well-established "neutrality" rule requiring the servicemen to remain strictly neutral regarding union activities or affairs at plants of customers while servicing machines there. Noting that the right of solicitation protected by section 7 encompasses almost all direct person-to-person support of organizational activity, the Board concluded that the neutrality rule was in effect a no-solicitation rule and its validity was to be determined by the principles applicable to such rules. Viewing the rule in the context of its application, the Board found no violation of section 8(a) (1) in the discharge of the serviceman. The rule was applicable only to employee activities during working time. Although it was applied to activity away from the employer's plant and among employees of another employer, there was a valid business necessity for the rule ; it was required to maintain the good will of both the management and the employees at the plants where vending machines were installed. In Tonkawa Refining Co., 3 the Board emphasized that, in order to find that an employer's conferral of employee benefits while a representation election is pending is a violation of section 8(a) (1), there must be a finding that the action was taken "for the purpose of inducing employees to vote against the union." 4 It held that the trial examiner had applied an improper test in holding that evidence of motive was immaterial and basing his findings upon whether the conduct tended to interfere with the employees' rights under the Act. The trial examiner's finding that the employer violated section 8(a) (1) by granting wage increases to his employees just before the election was affirmed, however, since the Board found that the employer in doing so was motivated by an intent to induce employees to vote against the union. The application of this test brought a contrary result in another case 5 where the employer announced 2 174 NLRB No. 169 8 175 NLRB No. 102 *Citing N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405. Twenty-ninth Annual Report (1964), pp. 103-104. 5 Louisana Plastics, 173 NLRB No. 218.
74 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board during the preelection period that there would be a wage increase following the election and thereafter placed the wage increase in effect while objections to the election were still pending. The Board found no improper motivation, noting the employer's expressed lack of objection to employee organization, and the fact that the wage increases were annual wage adjustments which were normally made at that time of year, which the employer announced he would defer until after the election and, which, in the event the employees chose representation, the employer would offer to the union in the course of negotiations. B. Employer Discrimination Against Employees Section 8(a) (3) prohibits an employer from discriminating against employees "in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment" for the purpose of encouraging or discouraging membership in any labor organization. However, the union-security provisions of section 8(a) (3) and 8(f) make exceptions to this prohibition, which permit an employer to make an agreement with a labor organization requiring union membership as a condition of employment, subject to certain limitations. 1. Application of Union-Security Clauses In Pacific Iron & Metal Co., 6 the Board held that the employer and union did not violate section 8(a) (3) and (1) and 8(b) (2) and (1) (A), respectively, by discharging an employee pursuant to an oral union-security agreement, since maintenance and enforcement of an otherwise valid union-security agreement does not necessarily become unlawful merely because the terms of the agreement are not in writing. In so concluding, the Board pointed out that it was mindful that the requirement of "fair dealing" owed employees under union-security agreements "includes the duty to inform the employee of his rights and obligations [respecting such agreements] so that the employee may take all necessary steps to protect his job." Parties who would defend action taken on the basis of such oral agreements must, therefore, satisfy a stringent burden of proof in establishing the existence and precise terms and conditions of the agreement and in further establishing that affected employees have been fully and unmistakably notified thereof. Here, the employees, including 6 175 NLRB No 114.
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: 22 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: VI Unfair Labor Practices The Board
Page 111 and 112: 100 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 129 and 130: VIII Enforcement Litigation Board o
Page 135 and 136:
124 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?