J. - National Labor Relations Board

IX. LITIGATION 137Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 306 U. S. 240, 251-2." In other words, the employer'sduty to bargain is not discharged even if he meets with theunion's representatives, 97 and even if he discusses the union's proposedcontract, section by section.92Nor is his duty to recognize the exclusive status of the majorityrepresentative relieved by any alleged doubt as to the appropriatenessof the unit claimed by the representative or as to its majoritywithin that unit, if his refusal is in fact predicated upon the broaderground of his unwillingness to deal with unions or "outsiders." 93As a corollary of this principle, an employer engages in an unfairlabor practice within the meaning of section -8 (5) if, while a legitimatemajority representative is seeking to bargain collectively withhim, he recognizes or negotiates with any other representative," orif he attempts to induce his employees to enter into individual contractscovering the matters regarding which their representatives areendeavoring to bargain collectively,95 or if in any other manner heattempt§ to induce his employees to forego collectively bargainingand deal with him as individuals."A good-faith effort to And a basis for agreement is a part of thebargaining obligation.—The employer must make a sincere effort,when requested to bargain, to find some basis for agreement with therepresentative of the employees regarding the issues presented.97Failure to submit counter proposals, especially if such proposals arerequested, may be an indication of the absence of any such genuine,effort."The bargaining obligation involves a willingness to reduce mattersagreed upon to a contract.—The Act contemplates the making of contracts with labor organizations. Thatis the manifest objective in providing for collective bargaining.This declaration of the Supreme Court in Consolidated Edison Co. v.L. R. B., 305 U. S. 197, 236, reaffirmed by a similar utterance in0° Affirming the findings and conclusions of law made by the Board onthis.point inMatter of Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. and Amal. Asen of Iron, Steerand Tin Workersof North. America. Local No. 66. 5 N. L. R. B. 930, 941. So also, N. L'.' R. B. v. LouisvilleRefining Co., 102 F. (2d) 678, 680-1 (C. C. A. 6), certiorari denied, October 9, 1939,enforcing Matter of Louisville Refining Co. and Int. Asen, Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery1Vorkers of America, 4 N. L. R. B. 844, 853, 876; Globe Cotton Mills v. N. L. R. B., 103F. (2d) 91. 94 (C. C. A., A. 5) ; N. L. R. B. v. Biles-Coleman Lumber Co., 98 F. (2d) 18, 22(C. C. A. 9). So also, during the preceding fiscal year : N. L. R. B. V. Pennsylvania GreyhoundLines, Inc., 303 U. S. 261, 267; Agwilines, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 87 F. (2d) 146, 153(C. C. A. 5).Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.i V. N. L. R. B.; N. L. R. B. V. Bile-Coleman Lumber Co.,both supra.02 N. L. R. B. v. Louisville Refining Co.; Globe Cotton Mills V. N. L. R. B. both supra.D3 Doubt as to unit rejected as aefense : N. L. R. B. V. Lund, 103 F. (2d) 815, 818(C. C. A. 8) ; N. L. R. B. v. Biles-Coleman Lumber Co., 98 F. (2d) 18, 22 (C. C. A. 9) ;N. L. R. B. V. National Motor Bearing Co:, 105 P. (2d) 652, 660 (C. C. A. 9).Doubt as to majority rejected as defense: N. L. R. B. v. Louisville Refining Co., 102 F.(2d) 678, 680 (C. C. A. 6). certiorari denied, October 9, 1939. So also, during the previousfiscal year, N. L. R. B. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. (2d) 862, 869 (C. C. A. 2),certiorari denied, 304 U. S. 576, 585.N. L. R. B. v. Jones ct Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 44—s; N. L. R. B. v. UnionPacific Stages, Inc., 99 F. (2d) 153, 159 (C. C. A. 9) ; N. L. R. B. v. National Motor BearingCo., 105 F. (2d) 652, 659-60 (C. C. A. 9).N. L. R. B. v. Hopwood Retinning Co.. 98 F. (2d) 97, 100 (C. C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B. v.National Licorice Co., 104 F. (2d) 655, 657 (C C. A. 2), certiorari granted, October 9,1939.L. R. B. v. Biles-Coleman Lumber Co., 98 F. (2d) 18, 22 (C. C. A. 9).g, Globe Cotton Mills V. N. L. R. B., 103 F. (2d) 91, 94 (C. C. A. 5). So also, duringpreceding fiscal year, Agwilines, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 87 F. (2d) 146, 153 (C. C. A. 5).03 Globe Cotton Mills V. N. L. R. B., supra; N. L. R. B. V. Louisville Refining Co., 102F. (2d) 678, 680 (C. C. A. 6). certiorari denied, October 9, 1939, affirming and enforcingMatter of Louisville Refining Co. and Int. Ass'n, Oil Field, Gum Well and Refinery Workersof America, 4 N. L. R. B. 844, 854. So also, during preceding fiscal year, Agwilines, Inc: V.N. L. R. B., supra, enforcing Matter of Agicslines, Inc., and Int. Longshoremen's Asen,Local No. 1402, 2 N. L. R. B. 1, 15-16.