J. - National Labor Relations Board

136 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.less and unnecessary in securing improvements in wages and workingconditions,88 or that it is unwise to join unions.87Support of an independent 'union constitutes an unfair laborractice.—Contribution of support by an employer to an admittedlyindependent union constitutes a violation of section 8 (1) of the act.In the Consolidated Edison case, 305 U. S. 197, the Supreme Courtupheld the Board's finding that the employer had unlawfully encouragedmembership in a nationally affiliated labor union by dischargeand threats of discharge of rival union members, by soliciting membershipin the favored union, and by giving union organizers freeaccess to company premises during working hours. Orders requiringthe Edison companies to desist from such practices were enforced.UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES — SECTION 8 (2)An employer may not exert even mild influence on behalf of an insideunion of his employees. Board findings of unlawful domination, interference,and support of such a union were upheld in Cudahy PackingCo. v. N. L. R. B., 102 F. (2d) 745, 751-2 (C. C. A. 8), even though,according to the Court's own statement, "Organization of it was conceivedand initiated by the workmen themselves," and "the evidence,by no means show [ed] any flagrant interference, much less coercionof employees" and "company influence was relatively slight. /, 8TaUNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—SECTION 8 (5)By the provisions of section 8 (5) of the Act, it is an unfair laborpractice for an employer to "refuse to bargain collectively with therepresentatives of his employees." Under section 9 (a), the representativesdesignated by a majority of the employees in an appropriateunit are the exclusive bargaining representatives.The general constitutionality of these provisions was upheld bythe Supreme Court in April 1937, in its Jones & Laughlin decision; 88and Board findings of unlawful refusal to bargain were subsequentlyupheld and made the basis for reinstatement of strikers in the RemingtonRand, Black Diamond, Jeffery-DeWitt, and Carlisle cases.89Further judicial delineation of the extent of an employer's duty tobargain collectively has taken place during the past fiscal year.An employer must, if requested, officially recognize the majorityrepresentative as the exclusive representative of all employees in theunit.—As a necessary prelude to collective bargaining, the employermust recognize the authority of the majority representative to speakfor all the employees in the appropriate unit. Fansteel MetallurgicalN. L. R. B. V. A. S. Abell co., 97 F. (2d) 951, 955 (C. C. A. 4). Contra, N. L. R. B. V.Union Pacific Stages, 99 F. (2d) 153, 163 (C. C. A. 9).81 N. L. R. B. v. Hearst, 102 F. (2d) 658, 662 (C. C. A. 9).87a Certiorari denied, October 9. 1939." N. L. R. B. V. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 45.8, N. L. R. B. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. (2d) 862 (C. C. A. 2), certiorari denied,' 304 U. S. 576. 585; Black Diamond S. S. Corp. V. N. L. R. B. 94 F. (2d) 875 (C. C. A. 2),certiorari denied, 304 U. S. 579; Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Ob. v. N. L. R. B., 91 F. (2d)134 (C. C. A. 4), certiorari denied, 302 U. S. 731; N. L. R. B. V. Carlisle Dumber Co., 94F. (2d) 138 (C. C. A. 9), certiorari denied, 304 U. S. 575. See Third Annual Report,p. 231.