1943 - National Labor Relations Board

• LIBRARY• -.AL tABOR, A.T1IntoR sto rtrtThe N. L. R. A. in Practice: Unfair Labor Practice Cases 31tively infrequently in Board proceedings, although their successorsstill present the Board from time to time with the problem of deciding,on the facts of each case, whether the effect of the employer'sdomination and support of the predecessor was effectively dissipatedprior to the formation of the successor organization, so that employeeswho joined the successor or designated it as their bargaining representativewere able to do so freely and voluntarily. Cases involvingnewer company-dominated unions revolved for the most part aroundsuch now familiar considerations as participation by the employer inthe formation of the organization, activities of supervisory employeesin promoting the formation or supporting the administration of labororganizations, disparagement of and opposition to rival unions by theemployer, use of company- facilities or property by the supportedorganization, and other means of lending a labor organization thesupport of the employer.Under Section 8 (2) of the Act, however, the employer's interference,domination, or support is forbidden only in connection with an organizationof employees which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part,of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. In twocases decided shortly before the end of the fiscal year, the Board hadbefore it the question of whether an employer's support and dominationof what was allegedly a social organization of his employees constitutedan unfair labor practice. In Matter of Donnelly GarmentCompany, 50 N. L. R. B. 241, the Board held that the company'sdomination and control of an organization of its employees allegedlyestablished for purely social purposes, and the company's utilizationof that organization to oppose the formation of a union by its employees,constituted unfair labor practices. Matter of Essex RubberCo., Inc., 50 N. L. R. B. 283, presented a somewhat similar problemwith respect to an organization established among the company's employeesostensibly for the sole purpose of promoting sports and socialactivities. However, it appeared that the organization was formedand led by strongly anti-union employees, some of whom had beenofficers of an employee-representation plan previously dominated bythe company; that the organization, immediately upon its formation,began a campaign to facilitate and encourage the resignation of employeesfrom an affiliated union which they had previously joined;and that the organization, upon threat of calling a strike, obtainedfrom the company- an agreement to check off a certain amount fromthe wages of each of its members. Some time thereafter the organizationformally amended its bylaws to denominate itself a labor organization.The Board held that it was in fact a labor organization priorto the formal amendment of its bylaws. 8 To avoid any future misunderstanding,the Board went on to state that, even if the organizationhad not been a labor organization prior to the amendment of its'The Board then held that, although the organization was a labor organization, the evidence did notestablish its domination or support by the employer.