NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

48 SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vacancies occurred. The Board found that the strikers "were excluded
from consideration solely because of their membership in
the Union and their participation in its strike." It held further that
the strike settlement agreement constituted "a continuing application
for reinstatement by the strikers," and that by virtue of the employer's
undertaking to recall the strikers, the company "assumed
responsibility for taking the first step toward the resumption of the
normal working relationship and relieved each listed striker of the
necessity of applying for work precisely when work for him was
available." Accordingly, the failure to rehire the strikers was held
to be in violation of section 8 (3) of the Act.
Section 8 (4) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer—
To discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has
filed charges or given testimony under this Act.
In Matter of Louis Kramer, et al.," the employer refused to rehire
an employee because of its asserted belief that the charges of discrimination
which had been filed in her behalf were false. The
Board found its refusal to be in violation of Section 8 (4) of the
Act. In so finding, the Board stated:
Section 8 (4) of the Act expressly prohibits discharge or any other form
of discrimination against an employee "because he has filed charges or given
testimony under the Act." We have found that the respondents determined
not to reemploy Silvick because she had filed charges which the respondents
deemed "false." The prohibition of the statute against discrimination is
effective irrespective of whether the employer believes the charges to be false
or whether the ultimate proof sustains their validity. To hold otherwise would
be to subject an employee, who invoked the protection of the Act, to the peril
of discrimination without redress in every case where the employer considered
the charges false or where, for whatever reason, the entire proof after a trial
upon the merits failed to sustain the validity of the charges filed. To that
extent such holding would nullify the express statutory protection afforded
employees against the unfair labor practice condemned by Section 8 (4) of
the Act.
C. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Section 8 (5) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer—
To refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees,
subject to the provisions of section 9 (a).
By Section 9 (a) the representative designated by the majority of
the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit is the
- exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit "for the
purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment." Accordingly,
the Board has held it to be an unfair labor practice
within Section 8 (5) for an employer to refuse to negotiate with the
statutory representative. The most patent violation of this sort
occurs when the employer bluntly refuses to have any discussion
with the representative of the majority union. Such was the case
in Matter of Norwich Dairy Company, Inc.,' 7 in which the president
Matter of L01148 Kramer, Henry Kramer and Hilda Kramer, trading as The Kramer
Company and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, 29 N. L. R. B., No. 135.
n Matter of Norwich Dairy Company, Inc. and Vermont Dairy Company, Inc. and
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America,
Local N. 671 (A. F. L.), 25 N, L. R. B., N. j21.,