1943 - National Labor Relations Board

The N. L. R. A. in Practice: Unfair Labor Practice Cases 37Other cases decided -during the last fiscal year repeated equallywell-established propositions. An outright refusal to negotiate withthe employees' designated representatives is, of course, a refusal tobargain. Failure to reply to communications from the employees'representatives or to grant them recognition a as representing all theemployees in the appropriate unit is 1s o a refusal to bargain. Bargainingwith employees individually does not satisfy the employer'sobligation, if a duly designated representative has requested collectivebargaining. Nor does an employer bargain collectively, withinthe meaning of the Act, merely by meeting with his employees' representativesand insisting that he continue to have absolute and unilateralcontrol over wages at all times." Assuming a refusal tobargain collectively, it is not a defense that one of the union's proposalswas for a closed shop, or that a strike was in process when therequest for collective bargaining was made, or that the employerthen had a contract with another labor organization which had previouslybeen given the employer's support and assistance, or thatindividual contracts of employment between the employer and hisemployees had been made prior to the designation of a collectivebargaining representative by the employees." And clearly, since theHeinz case in the Supreme Court, 33 it is a refusal to bargain collectivelyfor an employer to refuse to embody in a written contract anyterms upon which he has reached agreement with the representativesof his employees."In a case of first impression under Section 8 (5) of the Act, theBoard during the last fiscal year held that an employer, after enteringinto a collective bargaining contract with the duly designated representativeof his employees establishing a complete and detailedprocedure for the handling of grievances, could not properly promul- ./gate another complete and detailed procedure for the handling of "grievances without reference to the contract, or the exclusive bargainingrepresentative." The problem thus presented is one of reconciliationbetween the employer's obligation under the Act to bargainexclusively with the duly designated representatives of the employeesin an appropriate unit and the proviso to Section 9 (a) of the Act—"that any individual employee or a group of employees shall have theright at any time to present grievances to their employer." Subsequentto the North American case, the Board's interpretation of theproviso to Section 9 (a) was clarified and more fully restated in anopinion rendered by its General Counsel, which concluded that theproviso is properly limited to "permitting individuals or groups ofemployees to present grievances to their employer by appearing inbehalf of themselves at every stage of the grievance procedure set up.Matter of V-0 Milling Company. 43 N. L. R. B. 348.la Matter of J. L Case Company, 42 N. L. R. B. 85; Matter Of Texas, New Mexico & Oklahoma Coaches,Inc., 46N. L. R. B.343.H. J. Heinz Co. V. N. L. R. B., 311 II. S. 514.si Matter of American Creosoting Company, Incorporated, 48 N. L. R. B. 240.15 Matter of North American Aviation, Inc., 44 N. L. R. B. 604, set aside, N. L. R. B. v. North AmericanAviation Co., 138 F. (2d) 898(0. C. A. 0).