1 - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Unfair Labor Practices 83 were not being. asked to yield administration of the contract to an outside source, or to let the employers in another city be their bargaining representative, but only to allow one term of the contract to be established by an outside event. In the Board's view, this case was clearly distinguishable from Pennington,31 where the Supreme Court held that a union could not agree with employers that it would seek to impose on other employers the terms being negotiated. In that case, the union's subsequent bargaining with other employers would be straitjacketed, since the union had surrendered its freedom to act in its own interest in dealing with those employers. The clause in the instant case, under which terms agreed upon elsewhere would be imposed on the contract being executed, would not limit the freedom of the subsequent bargaining, which would not be done by either of the parties to the instant contract. In another case, 32 a local union, after reaching agreement with an employer on the terms of a contract, refused to sign the contract because the international and a sister local did not approve the wage rates provided therein. The sister local, which represented employees in an adjoining geographic area, claimed jurisdiction over the employees in the bargaining unit involved in the instant case, and the international union warned the local representing these employees that this claim would be pressed unless the local obtained the same wage rates that the sister local had obtained for employees it represented. The Board concluded that the local union did not violate section 8(b) (3) of the Act by failing to sign the agreement. It noted that for a local to condition the execution of a collective-bargaining agreement on approval by its international is not in itself unlawful." Here, the parties clearly understood that the international's approval was required, and the international's refusal to approve the contract was due to its dissatisfaction with the wage scale, which was an integral part of, and not extraneous to, the local's contract negotiations. The fact that the decision to withhold approval of the wage scale might have been influenced chiefly, or even solely, by the views of the sister local was immaterial, since the decision related to the terms and conditions of employment being negotiated by the local for the unit employees it represented and not to any terms and conditions of employment elsewhere. Consequently, the precondition attached to execution of the tentative agreement was not imn United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657. 32 Brotherhood of Painters, Loc. 850 (Morgantown Glass s. Mtrror), 177 NLRB No. 16. ' 33 Standard Oil Co., 137 NLRB 690 (1962).
84 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board proper, and the local's refusal to execute the agreement was not unlawful. 4. Duty To Furnish Information The statutory duty of an employer to bargain in good faith includes the duty to supply to the bargaining representative information which is "relevant and necessary" to the intelligent performance of its collective-bargaining duty and contract administration functions. 34 The scope of this obligation was considered by the Board this past year in a number of cases. In Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 35 the Board 36 considered whether the employer was obligated to furnish certain cost information sought by the union pertaining to subcontracting by the employer which was requested as relevant and necessary to the processing of two grievances filed by the union pursuant to contract grievance procedures. The Board observed that the specific provisions of the agreement on which the grievances were based pertained to recognition of the union as bargaining representative of unit employees, wages to be paid such employees for unit work, and a prohibition against strikes protesting the subcontracting of certain kinds of work not involved in the instant case. The Board further noted that at no time during the grievance discussions did the employer claim that cost was a factor in subcontracting, nor did the union explain how cost was relevant to its preparation or presentation of the grievances in question. Nor did the contract provisions on which the grievances were based refer to cost which, as noted previously, had not been asserted as a reason for subcontracting, and therefore the detailed information requested by the union would not have made the subcontracting any more or less permissible. Finding that no showing of relevancy or necessity had been established for the information requested, the Board dismissed the complaint. On the other hand, in Cowles Communications, 37 involving a publisher of magazines and other reading matter, the Board held that the employer violated section 8(a) (5) and (1) by refusing the union's request to furnish salary and related information, including the precise formula for any commission or bonus arrangements, or other forms of compensation in excess " See, e.g., Curtiss-Wright Corp. 146 NLRB 152 (1963). enfd. 347 F.2d 61 (C.A. 3), Twenty-ninth Annual Report (1964), P. 76, Thirtieth Annual Report (1965), P. 136. " 173 NLRB No 29. " Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria participating. " 172 NLRB No. 204.
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: 32 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of t
Page 55 and 56: V Representation Cases The Act requ
Page 83 and 84: VI Unfair Labor Practices The Board
Page 93: 82 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 145 and 146:
134 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
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?