J. - National Labor Relations Board

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 590527, C. I. 0. 17 the interference consisted in the spreading by a respondentof false rumors with respect to the effectiveness of the unionin winning benefits for the employees at a nearby plant, during anelection in which the union was a candidate for selection as bargainingrepresentative. The Board found that the respondent knew the reportto be false and none the less further circulated it among the employees,to discredit a labor organization.Under the circumstances of the case, however, the Board has heldthere was no interference with self-organization within the meaningof section 8 (1), where an employer in good faith himself conductedan election among his employees, but showed no favoritism toeither of the rival organizations contesting for designation asrepresentative."The act requires an employer to bargain collectively on request withthe union designated by a majority of his employees in an appropriateunit. The Board, accordingly, has held that an employer mustnot defeat collective bargaining by going behind the union so designatedand dealing directly with the employees who have chosen sucha union as their representative. In Hatter of TVilliaras Coal Companyand United Mine Workers of America, District No. the respondenthad entered into a contract with the union but subsequently attemptedto modify the terms of this contract through individual negotiationswith its employees. The Board' held that such activity was prohibitedby the act. 2° The Board has also condemned action where an employer,in response to a request by a union committee to negotiate ona matter of hours, has conducted his own ballot among the employeesas to their wishes on the question of hours, 21 and where the respondenthas attempted to bargain individually with employees during a strike,called by a union chosen to represent these employees, in protestagainst the respondent's unfair labor practices.22Similarly, the Board has pointed out the coercion involved in anemployer's statement to its employees that collective bargaining willbe futile, by posting a notice to the effect that the respondent wouldnever agree to a closed shop."Nor may an employer defeat collective bargaining and self-organizationby entering into individual contracts with employees whereby11 10 N. L. Ft. B. 1321, petition for enforcement filed on or about August 1. 1939 (C. C. A. 2).12 Matter of J. Wags & Sons Company and United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workersof America, 12 N. h. R. B. 601. In this case, however, the Board held that the electioncould not be considered determinative of the wishes of the employees. See infra. p. 75.'g 11 N. L. R. B. 579, petition for enforcement filed July 28, 1939 (C. C. A. 6).20 The Board said in this case that a breach of the contract with the union, would not,in itself, have constituted an unfair labor practice.21 Matter of The Weber Dental Manufacturing Company and The United Electrical andRadio Workers of America, 10 N. L. It. B. 1439.Matter of Newark Rivet Works and Unity Lodge No. 420, United Electrical & RadioWorkers of America, C. I. 0., 9 N. L. R. B. 498; Matter of Reed & Prince ManufacturingCompany and Steel Workers Organizing Committee of the C. I. 0., 12 N. L. R. B. 944. Cf.Matter of The Stolle Corporation and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers InternationalUnion, 13 N. L. R. B., No. 44. where the employer confirmed its refusal to bargainwith the union by entering into individual contracts with the employees.23 Matter of Roberti Brothers, Inc., and Furniture Workers Union, Local 1561, 8 N. L. R. B.925. The Board said in this case :"Were the Act to sanction such notice by the employer, he could with equal impunityfurther forestall and defeat union organization by announcing to his employees that underno circumstances would he recognize seniority among his employees for the purpose oflay-offs, that unler no circumstances would he consider a change in the hours of employment,that under no circumstances would he consider any change in any other term orcondition of employment. In effect, at the outset of union organization he could discouragehis employees from becoming members by warning them that any possible advantage to bederived from such membership was beyond their reach. We cannot permit the purposesof the Act to be so flouted."192197-40-5