J. - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 89has been aided by practices of the company which the Board has foundto constitute unfair labor practices within the meaning of the act."Finally, where there is only one employee in a unit claimed to be appropriateby the craft - imion, the Board, applying its doctrine that it willnot certify a collective bargaining representative for a single employee,"has decided that it will not permit . this employee to determinehis exclusion or inclusion but that it will include him hi the industrialunit.65As in the case of conflicts between industrial and craft unions,"where two industrial unions disagree, the Board has ordered a groupof employees included in an industrial unit if the industrial unionproposing their exclusion fails to show that the group constitutesa separate craft by reason of skill or function, or has diverse interestsfrom the employees it wishes to include." If such employees constitutea group ineligible for membership in an industrial union andby reason of their work and skill are eligible for membership in acraft union, the Board, at the request of an industrial union, willexclude them from an industrial unit, despite the opposition ofanother industrial union."3. MULTIPLE-PLANT AND SYSTEM UNITSIn determining whether the employees of one, several, or all plantsof an employer, or the employees in all or only a part of a system ofcommunications, transportation, or public utilities, constitute anappropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, the Board0 Matter of The Serrick Corp. and Int. Union, United Automob ge Workers of Amer.,Local No. 459. 8 N. L. R. B. 621. An additional reason for the Board's finding in thisdecision was the fact that the ''craft" union had attempted to organize all the employees ofthe company, forming one local for the craft employees and another local for the remainderof the employees. The Board pointed out that this division of the employees into twolocals for organizational purposes was artificial and that the "craft" un i on had reallyorganized on an industrial basis and therefore could not be heard to maintain that thecraft unit was appropriate. Chairman Madden did not concur in this ground of thedecision.04 Matter of Lu,kenbach Steamship Co.. Inc. and Gatemen, Watchmen and MiscellaneousWaterfront Workers Union. Local 38-124, 2 N. L. R. B. 181.es Matter of Joseph S. Finch & Co.. Inc. and United Distillery Workers Union, LocalNo. 3. 10 N. L. R. B. 896. Chairman Madden dissented." See cases ci ted in footnote 62. repro.51 Matter of Terminal Flour Mills Co. and Int. Longshoremen's and Warehousemen'sUnion, Local 1-28, 8 N. L. R. B. 381 (Board found inappropriate unit sou ght by oneindustrial union and opposed by another industrial union, where union seeking unit ofwarehouse employees only had previously sought unsuccessfully to represent all employeesin plant, had sought plant-wide units amon g employees of other employers in sameindustry, and failed to show any difference between work of warehousemen and that ofother employees it would exclude; Board found prior bargaining history of employeesof plant s(parating them into two units indecisive where based on jurisdictional disputes)Matter of United Fruit Co. and Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers ofAmer., Local 22. 9 N. L. R. B. 591 (claim of one industrial union for unit composed ofship repair and maintenan^e workers, excluding employees working on maintenance andrepair of piers, rejected. w'e re evidence showed that both classes of employees hadsame wages, hours of work tied working conditions and did similar work, and that neithergroup constituted a craft) ; Matter of Hat Corp. of Amer. and United Hatters, Cap andMillin,ry Workers Int. Union, 11 N. L. R. B. 1206 (claim of one industrial union for unitof only part of employees in one department rejected. wbere evidence showed such employeesdid not constitute a craft and that their work was similar to that of excludedemployees ; and where another union desired an industrial unit' the Board pointed outthat the claims of the one union were based upon the extent of its or ganization, whichincluded only part of the employees in the plant, and that the extent of its organizationcould not determine the bargaining unit where the opposing union had organized on aplant-wide basis).68 Matter of Armour & Co. and Amal. Meat Cutters and Butcher Worlanen of N. Amer.,Local No. 235, 10 N. L. R. B. 912 (truck drivers excluded, ineligible for membership)Hatter of F. E. Booth & Co. and Monterey Bay Area Fish Workers Union No. 23, 10N. L. R. B. 1491 (teamsters excluded, eligible for membership in other, craft. union)Matter of Swift & Co. and Comm. for Industrial Organization, 11 N. L. R. B. 950 (truckdrivers excluded, eligible for membership in other, craft. union).
90 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDhas taken into consideration the following factors : (1) the history,extent, and type of organization of the employees; (2) the history oftheir collective bargaining, including any contracts; (3) the history,extent, and type of organization, and the collective bargaining 1 ofemployees of other employers in the same industry ; (4) the relationshipbetween any proposed unit or units and the employer's organization,management, and operation of his business, including the geographicallocation of the various plants or parts of the system; and (5)the skill, wages, working conditions, and work of the employees.When all the unions, or the only bona fide labor organization, involved,request the Board to find that the employees in one or severalbut not all of the plants of one employer, constitute an appropriateunit, if this proposed unit corresponds with the present extent oforganization of employees ? the Board generally finds such a unitappropriate, despite the claim of the company that the employer-wideunit is appropnate.69 To find otherwise would often be to deny tothe employees any representative for the purposes of collective bargaininguntil all the employees of the company had been organized.The Board has pointed out in such cases that whenever some unionrequests an employer-wide unit and has organized to that extent, theBoard may then designate the wider unit.Despite the claim of the employer that separate units for each plantare appropriate, where the only bona fide union or unions haveorganized employees in all the plants and request an employer-wideunit, the Board ordinarily finds such a unit appropriate. 7° In Matterof Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. and Federation of Flat Glass Workersof Amer.," a majority of employees at one of the plants opposed therequest of the only bona fide labor organization involved for a division-wideunit including this plant. The Board established the division-wideunit since the only bona fide union had organized employeesthroughout the division. Such units tend to place the employees ona basis of equal bargaining strength with the employer and to preventany disharmony in the bargaining process to the temporary advantagee° Matter of Amer. Tobacco Co., Inc. and Comm. for Industrial Organization, Local No.47e, 9 N. L. It. B. 579 (1 of 6 plants) •, Matter of West Kentucky Coal Co. and UnitedMine ;Workers of Amer., District No. 23, 10 N. L. R. B. 84 (2 of 8 mines) ; Matterof Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. and Federation of Flat Glass Workers of Amer.. 10 N. L.R. B. 1111 (2 plants excluded from division -wide unit) ; Matter of New England SpunSilk- Corp. and Federal Union of Textile Workers, 11 N. L. R. B. 852 (1 of 2 :Matter of The Texas Co. and Oil Workers Int. Union Local #280, 11 N. L. It. B. 925(1 of 10 districts in 1 of 5 divisions of company's operations) ; Matter of ContinentalOil Co. and Oil Workers hit. Union, 12 N. L. R. B. 789 (gas plant employees excludedfrom unit of field employees); Matter of Luckenbach, Steamship Co., Inc. and MaritimeOffice Employees Ass'n, 12 N. L. R. B. 1333 (uptown office employees excluded from unitof dock employees) '• Matter of Kansas City Power .1 Light Co. and Local Union B-412,Int. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 12 N. L. R. B. 1461 (3 of several plants) Cf.Matter of The Middle West Corp. and Int. Brotherhood or Electrical Workers, 10 N. L.R. B. 618, footnote 78, infra, and cases cited in footnotes 47 and 48, supra.70 Matter of The Sorg Paper Co. and. Comm. for Industrial Organization, 8 N. L. R. B.657 (two plants) ; Matter of Sound Timber Co. and Int. Woodworkers of Amer., 8 N. L.R. B. 844 (two logging camps 25 miles apart) ; Matter of Inland Steel Co. and SteelWorkers Organ. Comm., 9 N. L. It. B. 783 (two plants 25 miles apart) • Matter of R. C. A.Communications, Inc. and Amer. Radio Telegraphists Ass'n, 9 N. L. 'IL B. 915 (systemwideunit) ; Matter of Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co. and Int. Brotherhood of Paper Makers,Local No. 59, 11 N. L. R. B. 446 (two mills 4 miles apart); matter or Highland ParkManufacturing Co. and Textile Workers Organ. Comm., 12 N. L. R. B. 1238 (three mills).Cf. cases cited in footnote 78, infra, except the Middle West71case.10 N. L. R. B. 1111, footnote 72, infra. On September 19. 1939, in 15 N. L. B. B.,No. 58, the Board reaffirmed its previous finding in the Pittsburgh case concerning anappropriate Milt. Board Member Leiserson dissented on the ground that this unit wasnot an appropriate one.
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 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 136 and 137: IX. LITIGATION 129'Where the corpor
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 172 and 173:
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 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?