J. - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IX. LITIGATION 129'Where the corporations involved have not been directly related bystock ownership, as in the cases above cited, but where identity ofcontrol has been plain, the Courts have sustained Board ordersagainst all corporations concerned. In N. L. R. B. v. HopwoodRetinning Co. and Monarch Retinning Co., 98 F. (2d), 97, 101-2(C. C. A. 2), a Board order directed jointly against a respondentand its allegedly independent successor in business was set aside,but only because there had been no formal charge filed with theBoard against the successor. However, the Court sustained the,Board's finding that the successor was the alter ego and agent of theoriginal respondent. Thus the successor corporation was subsequentlyadjudged in contempt for its failure to comply with the Court'senforcement decree, even though the decree had not been directedagainst it eo nomine.48Moreover, the Eighth Circuit sustained a Board order against twoallegedly ind ependent corporate entities in N. L. R. B. v. ChristianA. Lund, doing business as C. A. Lund Co. and Northland Ski Mfg.Co., 103 F. (2d) 815, (C. C. A. 8), the unity of ultimate ownershipand control having been establishedFinally, orders providing for reinstatement and back pay havebeen made effective against the survivor of a copartnership despitethe death of one of the partners after the issuance of the order.N. L. R. B. v. Kiddie Kover Mfg. Co., 105 F. (2d) 179, 182-3(C. C. A. 6).Supervisory employees bind their employer by their acts.—Byoperation of the principle of respondeat superior, employers are responsiblefor supervisory employees' interferences with the self-organizationof subordinate employees, even though those interferencesare entirely unauthorized by the higher executives; 49 or even if theyare in disregard of repeated and express instructions. 50 It has beenfurther established that supervisory employees heed not possess thepower to hire or fire in order to render the employer responsible fortheir actions.'ORDERS DISESTABLISHING COMPANY UNIONSA company union's structural incapacity for acting as true representativeof employees is not a prerequisite to disestablish,ment.—The power of the Board to order an employer to disestablish a purportedlabor organization dominated, interfered with, or supportedby the employer in violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act, was upheldin N. L. R. B. v. Pen'nsyl'vania Greyhound Lines, inc., 303 U. S. 261,and in N. L. R. B. v. Pacific Greyhouind Lines, Inc., 303 U. S. 272.In the latter case the Court declared :While the formal provisions, in constitution and bylaws, for insuring employercontrol of the company union in the Pennsylvania case are wantinghere, the record shows, as the Board found, that employer control * * *was none the less effective. (303 U. S., at 274.)Y. L. R. B. v. Hopwood Retitining Co., 104 F. (2d). 302 (C. C. A. 2).49 N. L. R. B. v. A. S. Abell Co., 97 F. (21) 951, 9a6 (C. C. A. 4) ; Virginia Perry Corp.v. N. L. R. B., 101 F. (2d) 103, 106 (C. C. A. 4) ; Swift & Co. v. N. L. R. B., 106 F. (2d)87, 93 (C. C. A. 10).5, Swift & Co. v. N. L. R. B., eupra.Gi Virginia Ferry Corp. v. N. L. R. B., suPi a.
130 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDA contrary holding was urged upon the Supreme Court in FansteelMetallurgical Corp. v. N. L R. B., 306 U. S. 240, where theprincipal basis of the employer's violation was his aid and supportof the disestablished organization, but the Court enforced the Board'sdisestablishment order. Moreover, in Cudahy Packing Co. v.N. L. R. B., 102 F. (2d) 745, 753 (C. C. A. 8), the Court expresslypointed out:The articles of association and the bylaws of the independent union convincethat the organization has the form and structure adequately to function as afree representative of the employees.Nevertheless, it upheld the disestablishment order because the freechoice of bargaining representatives is "so subject to subtile pressure"and was subjected to such pressure in that case.52ORDERS INVALIDATING CONTRACTSCompany union contracts may be invalidated by Board order.-In order to make the disestablishment of a company-dominatedunion complete, the Board may require the employer to cease anddesist giving effect to any contract which has been entered into withsuch an organization.53Individual contracts in violation of the, Act ;nay be invalidated byBoard order.-Where an employer has induced employees to sign"yellow dog" contracts whereby they waive rights guaranteed tothem by the Act, or contracts dealing with matters regarding whicha legitimate majority representative is seeking to bargain collectively,the Board may require the employer to send individual notificationsto each signer informing him that the contract is void.54Closed-shop contracts with minority unions may be invalidated.-Section 8 (3) of the Act provides that employees shall not be discriminatedagainst in order to encourage or discourage membershipin any labor organization, except where such discrimination is theresult of a closed-shop contract concluded with a majority -representativenot established, maintained, or assisted by an unfair laborpractice.52 It is noteworthy that in N. L. R. B. v. Freezer and Son, 95 F. (2d) 840, 841 (C. C. A.4), enforcing Matter of F. Freezer & Son and Antal. Clothing Workers of America, etc.,3 N. L. R. B. 120, 122-4, and in Y. L. R. B. V. Eagle Mfg. Co., 99 F. (2d) 930 (C. C. A. 4),enforcing Matter of Eagle Mfg. Co. and Steel Workers Org. Committee, 6 N. L. R. B. 492,499, disestablishment orders were upheld despite the absence of any findings that thestructures of the company unions there concerned were in any respect defective. Acontrary decision by the same Court in Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. V.N. L. R. B., 101 F. (2d) 841 (C. C. A. 4), was reversed by the Supreme Court on December4, 1939.5.° N. L. R. B. v. Ronni Parfum, Inc., 104 F'. (2d) 1017 (C. C. A. 2), enforcing Matterof Ronni Parfum and United Mine Workers of Amer., Dist. No. 50, Chemical Div.8 N. L. Ft. B. 323, 334; N. L. R. B. v. National Licorice Co., 104 F. (2d) 655 (C. C. A. 2),certiorari granted, October 9, 1939, enforcing Matter of National Licorice Co. and Bakeryand Confectionery Workers Int. Union of Amer., Local No. 405, 7 N. L. R. B. 537, 554;N. L. II. B. v. Stocky°le Carbon Co., 105 F. (2d) 167, 173 (C. C. A. 3), certiorari denied,November 6, 1939; N. L. R. B. v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 99 F. (2d.) 930 (C. C. A. 4), enforcingMatter of Eagle Mfg. Co. and Steel Workers Org. Committee, 6 N. L. R. B. 492, 507;Cudahy Packing Co. V. N. L. R. B., 102 F. (2d) 745, 747, 752 (C. C. A. 8), cert. denied,October 9, 1939; Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. N. L. R. B., 104 F. (2d) 49, 54 (C. C. A. 8).54 N. L. R. B. v. Hopwood Retinning Co., 98 F. (2d) 97 (C. C. A. 2), enforcing Matterof Hopwood Retinnitig Co. and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers, and Helpers Int. Union,Local No. 8, and Teamsters Union, Local No. 584, 4 N. L. R. B. 922, 944; N. L. R. B. v.National Licorice Co., 104 F. (20) 655, 657 (C. C. A. 2), certiorari granted, October 9, 1939,enforcing Matter of Nat. Licorice Co. and Bakery and Confectionery Workers Int. Unionof Amer., Local No. 405, 7 N. L. R. B., 537, 555. So also, during previous fiscal yearN. L. R. B. v. Carlisle Lumber Co., 94 F. (2d) 13P (C. C. A. 9), certiorari denied, 304U. S. 575, enforcing Matter of Carlisle Lumber Co. and Lumber & Sawmill WorkersUnion, Local No. 2511, etc., 2 N. L. R. B. 248, 278, 281.
Page 4:
LETTER OF TRANSMITTALNATIONAL LABOR
Page 13 and 14:
6 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL
Page 15 and 16:
FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LA
Page 17 and 18:
10 FOITRTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONA
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
IV. WORK OF THE BOARDUnder the act
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
,24 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONA
Page 34 and 35:
IV. WORK OF THE BOARD 27If all case
Page 36 and 37:
V. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES 29of
Page 38 and 39:
TABLE VI.—Analyses of charges rec
Page 40 and 41:
V. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES 33Th
Page 42 and 43:
TABLE VIII.—Disposition of unfair
Page 44 and 45:
V. UNFAIR LABOR PRAWICE CASES 37TAB
Page 46 and 47:
General Tax Tips #46TO BE PRINTED B
Page 48 and 49:
V. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES 41TA
Page 50 and 51:
VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 43tion. In
Page 52 and 53:
TABLE XV.—bisposition of represen
Page 54 and 55:
VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 47'unions.
Page 56 and 57:
VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 49TABLE XV
Page 58 and 59:
VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 51C. ELECT
Page 60 and 61:
TABLE XX.-Elections conducted by th
Page 62 and 63:
VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 55(2) On a
Page 64 and 65:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 57A. IN
Page 66 and 67:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 590527,
Page 68 and 69:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED • 61T
Page 70 and 71:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 63In Ma
Page 72 and 73:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 65emplo
Page 74 and 75:
' VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 67in
Page 76 and 77:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 69D. DO
Page 78 and 79:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 71I * *
Page 80 and 81:
WI. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 73that,
Page 82 and 83:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 75.tion
Page 84 and 85:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 77Annua
Page 86 and 87: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 79to th
Page 88 and 89: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 81conte
Page 90 and 91: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 83or ot
Page 92 and 93: VIL PRINWYLES ESTABLISHED 85the wis
Page 94 and 95: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 87to de
Page 96 and 97: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 89has b
Page 98 and 99: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 91of on
Page 100 and 101: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 93In Ma
Page 102 and 103: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 95of pr
Page 104 and 105: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISTTF.D 97-th
Page 106 and 107: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 99The B
Page 108 and 109: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 101The
Page 110 and 111: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 103ploy
Page 112 and 113: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 105More
Page 114 and 115: VII. PIIINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 107the
Page 116 and 117: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 109In a
Page 118 and 119: VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 111by i
Page 120 and 121: VIII. JURISDICTION 113This result h
Page 122 and 123: IX. LITIGATION 115ing Mill Employee
Page 124 and 125: IX. LITIGATION 117ployees after ref
Page 126 and 127: IX. LITIGATION 119-which they forme
Page 128 and 129: IX.. LITIGATION 121which had gained
Page 130 and 131: IX. LITIGATION 123Court held that t
Page 132 and 133: IX. LITIGATION 125B. MISCELLANEOUS
Page 134 and 135: IX. LITIGATION 127had given full ef
Page 138 and 139: IX. LITIGATION 131• When the unio
Page 140 and 141: IX. LITIGATION 133established altho
Page 142 and 143: IX. LITIGATION 135corporation's fai
Page 144 and 145: IX. LITIGATION 137Corp. v. N. L. R.
Page 146 and 147: DC. LITIGATION13gopposed to that un
Page 148 and 149: IX. LITIGATION 141B. CONSENT DECREE
Page 150 and 151: IX. LITIGATION 143Dupuy Storage d F
Page 152 and 153: IX. LITIGATION 145L. C. Phenix Co..
Page 154 and 155: IX. LITIGATION 147Tenth Circuit Cou
Page 156 and 157: X. THE TRIAL EXAMINERS' DIVISIONThe
Page 158 and 159: X. THE TRIAL EXAMINERS' DIVISION 15
Page 160 and 161: XI. DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1
Page 162 and 163: XL DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 15
Page 164 and 165: XI. DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1
Page 166 and 167: XII. INFORMATION DIVISION 159The ac
Page 168 and 169: INFORMATION DIVISION 161,Throughout
Page 170 and 171: XIII. LIST OF CASES HEARD AND DECIS
Page 174 and 175: XIII. LIST OF CASES HEARD- AND DECI
Page 176 and 177: LIST OF CASES HEARD AND DECISIONS R
Page 178 and 179: XM. LIST OF CASES HEARD AND DECISIO
Page 186 and 187:
XIII. LIST OF CASES HEARD AND DECIS
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
APPENDIX ATABLE T.—Comparison of
Page 198 and 199:
CHART A6NUMBER OF STRIKES CONTRASTE
Page 200 and 201:
' •Arpti-smix"A 193TABii -1L-Comp
Page 202 and 203:
NUMBER OF WORKERS INVOLVED IN ORGAN
Page 204 and 205:
CHART EMILLIONS OFMAN-DAYS OF IDLEN
Page 206 and 207:
APPENDIX B• ,. "Pft,LIST .7 F 3RE
Page 208 and 209:
200 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONA
show all

J. - National Labor Relations Board

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?