NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

More documents

Recommendations

Info

VI. LITIGATION 89 Antiunion statements.—Employer utterances of hostility toward labor organizations are widely varied in form. Included among those condemned by the courts are disparaging remarks concerning labor unions,35 their leaders and organizers; 88 the characterization of union leaders as "labor dictators",37 or "evangelists who [take] money in return for nothing," 88 or as "outsiders" 39 who would "mislead" the employees; 40 reference to union dues as "tribute" 41 which need not be paid. for the right to work and enjoy the best possible working conditions; 42 threats of legal action against employees engaging in union activity," threats to shut off the personal credit of such employees." It is impossible to say, until the Supreme Court has spoken upon the question, precisely to what extent the constitutional privilege of free speech impinges upon the Board's power to make findings of unfair labor practices based upon anti-union statements. It is clear, however, in view of the many Supreme Court decisions sustaining such findings without comment 2 that the Board may properly consider such statements as evidencing hostility to the Union which may illegally restrain the employees' free choice of representative. 45 The present state of the law appears aptly summarized by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in N. L. I. B. v. New Era Die Co., as follows : * * * the right to entertain opinions and to express them freely does not carry with it freedom from responsibility for the intended or reasonably foreseeable consequences in so far as the utterance may restrain or impair the rights of others. The fact that expression is free does not mean that the utterer may not be called upon to answer for it by way of being held accountable for the effect of his expressions. The evidentiary value of the utterance, when competent and material, is ever present. Coercion may be thus established, if the proof be sufficient and although the proof may result from one's exercise of his right to speak freely." Antiwnion violence promoted by the em,ployer.—Employers have been held responsible for physical violence against employees because of their union membership or activity where the employer has encouraged his employees to hostile action against union organizers,47 .5 H. J. Heinz Co. v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 514. 518: N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U. S. 584, 592-596, Texarkana Bus Co. v. N. L. R. B., 119 F. (26) 480, 484 (C. C. A. 8) ; N. L. R. B. v. Reynokla Wire Co., 121 F. (20) 627, 628-629 (C. C. A. 7) ; N. L. R. B. v. Stover, 114 F. (20) 513, 515 (C. C. A. 10) ; Solvay Process Co. V. N. L. R. B. 117 F. (26) 83, 85 (C. C. A. 5) •, N. L. R. B. v. Reed & Prince Mfg. CO., 118 F. (26) 874. 883-885 (C. C. A. 1) ; Oughton V. N. L. R. B., 118 F. (26) 486, 489 (C. C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B. V. Chicago Apparatus Co., 116 F. (2d) 753, 756-757 (C. C. A. 7) ; Triplex Screw Co. v. N. L. R. B., 117 F. (2d) 858, 860 (C. C. A. 6). Be N. L. R. B. v. Reynolds Wire Co., 121 F. (26) 627, 628 (C. C. A. 7) ; Corning Glass Works v. N. L. R. B., 118 F. (26) 625. 629 (C. C. A. 21; N. L. R. B. V. Auburn Foundry, Inc., 119 F. (2d) 331, 335 (C. C. A. 7) ; Valley Mould & Iron Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 116 F. (2d) 760, 762 (C. C. A. 7) ; Oughton V. N. L. R. B.. 118 F. (26) 486. 489 (C. C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B. v. Chicago Apparatus Co.. 116 F. (26) 753, 756-757 (C. C. A. 7). 47 N. L. R. B. v. General Motors Corp., 116 F. (26) 306. 309 (C. C. A. 7). a8 N. L. R. B. v. West Texas Utilities Co.. 119 F. (26) 683. 684 (C. C. A. 5). 39 International Ass'n of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72, 78, enrg 8 N. L. R. B. 621, 645; N. L. R. B. V. Roebling's Sons Co., 120 F. (20) 289, 291 (C. C. A. 3) ; Valley Mould & Iron Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 116 F. (26) 760. 763 (C. C. A. 7). 4° L. R. B. v. Roebling's Sons Co., 120 F. (26) 289, 291 (C. C. A. 3). 41 N. L. R. B., V. Chicago Apparatus Co., 116 F. (26) 753. 756 (C. C. A. 7). 42N . L. R. B. v. Schmidt Baking Co., 122 F. (2d) 162, 164 (C. C. A. 4)_,N. L. R. B. V. Stover, 114 F. (2d) 513, 515 (C. C. A. 10) ; Stewart Die Casting Corp. v. N. L. R. B.,°114 F. (26) 849, 853 (C. C. A. 7) ; Valley Mould cE Iron Corp. V. N. L. R. B., 116 F. (26) 760, 762 (C. C. A. 7). 4, Corning Glass Works V. N. L. R. B. 118 F. (2d) 625, 628 (C. C. A. 2). 44 Colorado Fuel CC Iron Corp. V. N. L. R. B., 121 F. (26) 165, 175 (C. C. A. 10). " S e e for example, International Ass'n of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72, 76, 78. 79, 81 ; N. L. R. B. V. Link-Belt Co., 311 U. S. 584, 588, 597-598. 40 118 F. (20) 500, 505. 47 N. L. R. B. v. New Era Die Co., 118 F. (26) 500. 504 (C. C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B. V. Elkland Leather Co., 114 F. (26) 221, 224 (C. C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B. V. Ford Motor Co., 114 F. (26) 905, 909-913 (C. C. A. 6).
90 SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD incited employees to violence by dominating a labor organization engaged in violence," and by permitting antiunion employees violently to evict union members from the plant." Other interference.—It has also been held to be a violation of section 8 (1) for an employer to contribute funds to the local mayor and "citizens' committee" to promote their antiunion and strikebreaking activity," to permit, without repudiation, prominent community figures and publications to publicize the employer's hostility toward labor organizations, 51 to induce employees to subscribe to a stock purchase plan providing that the employees would not request a wage increase,52 and to interfere with an election conducted by the Board by refusing to post notices of the election and by threatening and intimidating the employees if they participated therein." UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—SECTION 8 (2) In the main, litigation under section 8 (2) during the past year has involved the application of principles already established, rather than development of new principles. Of notable importance, however, are the decisions of the Supreme Court recognizing the subtlety of the pressures which the Board, as an experienced specialized tribunal, must appraise in the light of the "whole congeries of facts" 64 and of the "imponderables permeating" the record. 55 "The detection and appraisal of such imponderables are indeed one of the essential functions of an expert administrative agency." 66 These considerations are especially important in connection with the question of assistance to labor organizations, for, as the Court noted : Known hostility to one union and clear discrimination against it may indeed make seemingly trivial intimations of preference for another union powerful assistance for it. Slight suggestions as to the employer's choice between unions may have telling effect among men who know the consequences of incurring that employer's strong displeasure.'57 Subtle manifestations may be as effective as direct. 58 - Assistance to one labor organization by expression of hostility to another has been noted in several of the decisions of "the various circuit courts of appeals. 58 Other forms of assistance have included securing of bank loans," use of undercover operatives to spy upon activities of a rival organization, 81 distribution by the employer of ballots providing an opportunity to vote for a "company union" 0 Eagle-Picher Mining (C Smelting Co. v. N. L. R. B.. 119 F. (2d) 903, 910 (C. C. A. 8) 45 N. L. R. B. v. Genera/ Motors Corp., 116 F. (2(1) 306. 309-310 (C. C. A. 7). 5° Bethlehem Steel Co v. N. L. R. B., 120F. (2d \ 641, 646 (C. A. D. C.). 51 N. L. R. B. v. Ekland Leather Co., 114 (26) 221, 223 (C. C. A. 38). N. L. R. B. v. Vincennes Steel Corp., 117 F. (26) 169, 171-174 (C. C. A. 7). "New York Handkerchief Mfg. Co. V. N. L. R. B., 114 F. (2d) 144, 147 (C. C. A. 7). MN L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U. S 584. :188. 55 International A88'n of Machinists v. N. L. R.. B., 311 U. S. 72, 79. 0 Ibid. 57 Diem, at 78. 55 Link-Belt case, supra, n. 54, at 599. 56 New Idea, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 117 F. (2d) 517, 523 (C. C. A. 7) ; Texas Co. v. N. L. R. B., 119 F. (2c1) 23, 24-26 (C. C. A. 7) ; N. L. R. B. v. Superior Tanning CO., 117 F. (20) 881. 887-888 (C. C. A. 7) ; N. L. R. B. V. Texas Mining and Smelting Co.. 117 F. (26) 86, 89 (C. C. A. 5); N. L. S. B. v. Moltrup Steel Products Co.. 121 F. (26) 612, 616 (C. C. A. 3) ' ' N. L. R. B. v. Blossom Products Corp., 121 F. (26) 260, 261-262 (C. C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B. V. Aluminum Products Co., 120 F. (2d) 567, 569-572 (C. C. A. 7) ; N. L. R. B. V. -West Texas Utilities Co., 119 F. (26) 683, 685 (C. C. A. 5). 5° Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co. V. N. L. R. B. 119 F. (26) 903, 908-909 (C. C. A. 8). In Bethlehem Steel Co. V. N. L. R. B., 120 F. (26) 641, 647 (C. A. D. C.) •, N. L. R. B. V. Dow Chemical Co., 117 F. (26) 455, 457-458 (C. C. A. 6). It has been held that there need be no showing that any specific use was made of the information obtained by labor spies or that the employees knew they were being watched. Bethlehem . Steel case, supra, at p. 647.
Page 1 and 2:
SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL
Page 3 and 4:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WILL
Page 6 and 7:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. A
Page 8 and 9:
SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL
Page 10 and 11:
I. A SUMMARY 3 In dealing with disp
Page 12 and 13:
I. A SUMMARY 5 report is used as a
Page 14 and 15:
ClIAPTE11 It THE NATIONAL LABOR REL
Page 16 and 17:
II. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ;
Page 18 and 19:
III. STATISTICAL RECORD OF BOARD AC
Page 20 and 21:
Ill. ,STATISTICAL RECORD OF BOARD A
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Metal mining Coal mining Crude petr
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
TABLE 1 1.-Number of cases and numb
Page 38 and 39:
Cases closed otherwise Cases closed
Page 40 and 41:
Cases closed by compliance with int
Page 42 and 43:
By consent election By pay-roll che
Page 44 and 45:
TABLE 19.-Number of elections and p
Page 46 and 47: C. I. 0. alone I A. F. L:C. I. 0 2
Page 48 and 49: IV. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 41 in wh
Page 50 and 51: IV. PRINCIPLES 'ESTABLISHED 43 of o
Page 52 and 53: IV. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISIEIED 45 B.
Page 54 and 55: IV. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 47 Whene
Page 56 and 57: 1V.. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 49 of t
Page 58 and 59: IV. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 51 agree
Page 60 and 61: IV. PRINCIPLES ESTAISLISUEL-ED 53 A
Page 62 and 63: IV. PRINCIPLES 'ESTABLISHED 55 I. I
Page 64 and 65: IV. PRINCIPLES ESTABLIS'HED 57 dict
Page 66 and 67: IV. PRE\rCIPLES ESTABLISHED 59 the
Page 68 and 69: IV. PRINCIPLES 'ESTABLISHED 61 vote
Page 70 and 71: IV. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 63 G. TH
Page 72 and 73: IV. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 65 ees a
Page 74 and 75: ni. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 67 4. MU
Page 76 and 77: IV. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 69 pursu
Page 78 and 79: IV. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 71 not b
Page 80 and 81: IV. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 73 ORDER
Page 82 and 83: IV. PRINCIPLES VSTABLISHED 75 the r
Page 84 and 85: I V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 77 more
Page 86 and 87: IV. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 79 emplo
Page 88 and 89: V. JURISDICTION 81 and outgoing int
Page 90 and 91: CHAPTER VI LITIGATION A decided inc
Page 92 and 93: VI. LITIGATION 85 parties constitut
Page 94 and 95: • VI. LITIGATION 87 B. PRINCIPLES
Page 98 and 99: VI. LITIGATION 91 when none is in e
Page 100 and 101: VI. LITIGATION 93 flict of opinion
Page 102 and 103: VI. LITIGATION 95 Lion. The Board's
Page 104 and 105: VI. LITIGATION 97 Court ruled that
Page 106 and 107: VI. LITIGATION 99 rial ; 32 to refu
Page 108 and 109: VI. LITIGATION 101 Other procedural
Page 110 and 111: VI. LITIGATION 103 D. SPECIAL LITIG
Page 112 and 113: VI. LITIGATION 105 B. APPLICATION O
Page 114 and 115: APPENDIX A REGIONAL OFFICES—LOCAT
Page 116 and 117: APPENDIX A Region 11, Architects In
Page 118 and 119: APPENDIX B CASES HEARD DURING THE F
Page 120 and 121: APPENDIX B 113 Jackson Cookie Co.,
Page 122 and 123: APPENDIX B 115 Western Printing Co.
Page 124 and 125: APPENDIX B 117 Chrysler Corporation
Page 126 and 127: APPENDIX B 119 Hardy Mfg. Co., owne
Page 128 and 129: APPENDIX B 121 Missouri Rolling Mil
Page 130 and 131: APPENDIX B 123 Selznick Internation
Page 132 and 133: APPENDIX B 125 Westinghouse Electri
Page 134 and 135: APPENDIX C 127 Vol. No. Fletcher Pa
Page 136 and 137: APPENDIX C 129 Vol. No. Texarkana B
Page 138 and 139: APPENDIX C 131 Vol. No. Sanderson,
Page 140 and 141: APPENDIX c 133 Vol. No. Cambridge I
Page 142 and 143: APPENDIX C 135 Vol. No. Gliden Buic
Page 144 and 145: APPENDIX C 137 Vol. No. Lowenstein
Page 146 and 147:
APPENDIX C 139 Vol. No. Radio Wire
Page 148 and 149:
APPENDIX C 141 Vol. No. Universal P
Page 150 and 151:
APPENDIX C 143 Vol. No. General Mot
Page 152 and 153:
APPENDIX D 145 Valley Mould CC Iron
Page 154 and 155:
APPENDIX D 147 (b) Board orders enf
Page 156 and 157:
APPENDIX D 149 Circe-Simplex Corp.,
Page 158 and 159:
APPENDIX D 151 Seventh Circuit B. Z
Page 160 and 161:
APPENDIX D 153 Pacific Grape Produc
Page 162:
APPENDIX D 155 Eighth Circuit N. L.
show all

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?