NATIONAL LAB RELATIONS BOARD - National Labor Relations ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

VII. LITIGATION 97not defend its discharge of an employee on the ground of hostility tothe union on the part of its other employees, where that hostility wasprovoked by its own actions.'3Finally, a discharge is discriminatory if prompted by the unionactivity of a relative of the discharged employee.74Evidence of 8 (3) violation—Intent to discourage union activity.—The antiunion purpose of a discharge, lay-off, or other change inemployment, may be shown in various ways. Thus, an inference ofdiscriminatory purpose may be drawn from the fact that the employerwas hostile to union activity.'2 Such hostility may be shownby the employer's refusal to bargain with a union, 76 his questioningof employees concerning their union membership, 77 his threats ofdischarge if union activities are continued, 78 or his attempts to inducethe discharged employee to abandon the Union. 78 And where anemployer engages in espionage to ascertain the union affiliations ofits employees, a presumption is warranted that he used the informationreceived."Evidence of 8 (3) violation—Union, activity of affected employees.—Thefact that the percentage of union members among a groupof employees laid off was unusually high may be taken into considerationin determining whether the lay-off was discriminatory. 81 Likewisepointing to discriminatory intent is the fact that the employeesdischarged were leaders or otherwise outstanding in union activity,82or that they refused to join a company-dominated union."Evidence of 8 (3) violation—Failure of employer's explanation.—Where there are circumstances tending to show anti-union discrimination,and the employer's attempt to establish a legitimate basis for thedischarge fails, or appears plainly inadequate, a finding of discriminationis all the more indicated, e. g., where the reason given by theemployer for the discharge is obviously a mere pretext; 84 or where"N. L. R. B. v. Sunshine Mining Co., 110 F. (2d) 780 (C. C. A_ 9), certiorari denied January13. 1941.Mexia Textile Mills V. N. L. R. B., 110 F. (2d) 565 (C. C. A. 5).79 Union Drawn Steel Co. v. N. L. R. B.. 109 F. (2d) 587 (C. C. A. 3) ; HartseU Mills Co. V.N. L. R. B., 111 F. (2d), 291 (C. C. A. 4); N. L. R. B. V. Planters Mfg. Co., 105 F. (28)750 (C. C. A. 4) ; Montgomery Ward Co. V. N. L. R. B., 107 F. (28) 555 (C. C. A. 7) ;Guppies Co. Mfrs. V. N. L. R. B.. 106 F. (28) 100 (C. C. A. 8) ; Kansas City Power .1 LightCo. v. N. L. R. B. 111 F. (2d) 340 (C. C. A. 8) ; but cf. Empire Furniture Corp. v. N. L. R. B.,107 F. (2d) 92 (C. C. A. 6).79 Bussmann Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 111 F. (28) 783 (C. C. A. 8).77 Botany Worsted Mills v. N. L. R. B.. 106 F. (2d) 263 (C. C. A. 3).78 Arcadia Hosiery Co. v. N. L. R. B., 112 F. (28) 326 (C. C. A. 3), certiorari denied,61 S. Ct. 38; Guppies Co. Mfrs. v. N. L. R. B. 106 F. (2d) 100 (C. C. A. 8).79 N. L. R. B. v. Tovrea Packing Co., 111 F. (2d) 626 (C. C. A. 9), certiorari denied,61 S. Ct. 28.Montg,omery Ward cf Co. V. N. L. R. B., 107 F. (28) 555 (C. C. A. 7). Conversely,absence of evidence that the employer knew of the union membership or activity of thedischarged employee tends to disprove discrimination. N. L. R. B. V. Asheville Hosiery Co.,108 F. (28) 288 (C. C. A. 4) ; N. L. R. B. V. Boss Mfg. Co., 107 F. (2d) 574 (C. C. A. 7) ;N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Co., 61 S. Ct. 358."Montgomery Ward cf Co. v. N. L. R. B., 107 F. (2d) 555 (C. C. A. 7) ; Cupptes Co.Mfrs. V. N. L. R. B., 106 F. (2d) 100 (C. C. A. 8) ; Kansas City Power CF Light Co. V.N. L. R. B., 111 F. (2d) 340 (C. C. A. 8) ; North Whittier Heights Citrus Asson V.N. L. R. B., 109 F. (2d) 76 (C. C. A. 9), certiorari denied, 310 11. S. 632, rehearingdenied, 61 S. Ct. 54." American MM. Co. v. N. L. R. B. 106 F. (2d) 61 (C. C. A. 2). affirmed as modified 309U. S. 629 ; N. L. R. B. v. Leviton Mfo. Co., 111 F. (2d) (C. C. R. 2) ; N. D. R. B. v.National Casket Co., Inc., 107 F. (28) 992 (C. C. A. 2) ; Arcadia Hosiery Co. v. N. L. R. B.,112 F. (20) 326 (C. C. A. 3). certiorari denied, 61 S. Ct. 38; Hartsell Mills Co. V. N. L. R. B.,111 F. (2d) 291 (C. C. A. 4) ; N. L. R. B. v. Planters Mfg. Co., Inc.,4) ;105 F. (28) 750 (C. C. A.N. L. R. B. v. Tovrea Packing Co., 111 F. (2d) 626 (C. C. A. ). certiorari denied, 61 S. Ct.28; Continental Oil Co. V. N. L. R. B., 113 F. 473 (C. C. A_ 10), certiorari granted, 61S. Ct. 72; Southern Colorado Power Co. V. N. L. R. B.,83 N.111 F. (2d) 539 (C. C. A. 10).L. R. B. v. J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., 110 F. (28) 984 (C. C. A. 7), certioraridenied, 61 S. Ct. 18."Arcadia Hosiery Co. T. N. L. R. B., 112 F. (2d) 326 (C. C. A. 3), certiorari denied.61 S. Ct. 38; Bussmann Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 111 F. (28) 783 (C. C. A. 8).
98 FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDthe reason relied upon by the employer was not given to the employeeat the time of his discharge; 85 or where an employee is allegedly dischargedfor violation of a claimed plant rule but it appears that it isquestionable whether the rule existed, or, if it did, that discharge wasnot the normal penalty," or that it was enforced on the occasion inquestion only against the leaders of union activity 87 and not againstothers. Also, where inefficiency or misconduct is advanced as the basisfor a discharge or lay-off (a valid defense, of course, where shown tohave been the actual motivating cause)," the defense is rebutted byevidence that the employee had a good record or had been employedfor a long time 89 without disciplinary action because of the allegedinefficiency or misconduct.9°Discontinuance or curtailment of the operations upon which anemployee has been engaged may likewise be a valid explanation fora layoff,91 but not if used as a cover for discriminating against unionmembers," as where, in order to eliminate union employees, they aretransferred to operations about to be discontinued 93 or where thenormal seniority practices of the employer are disregarded," or wherethe employee is replaced by another so that the job is not in factdiscontinued."UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—SECTION 8 (5)The employer must grant excLusive recognition', to the union as aunion.—A union selected by a majority of the employees in an appropriateunit is entitled to recognition as the exclusive representative ofall of the employees in that unit. Hence a refusal to accord it suchrecognition is a violation of section 8 (5) of the Act." Furthermore,the union is entitled to recognition qua union, and the employer maynot limit the recognition given in such fashion as to deprive this unionof its status as an equal m the bargaining relationship.97N. L. II. B. V. National Casket Co., Inc., 107 F. (26) 992 (C. C. A. 2).99 N. L. R. B. V. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n, 310 U. S. 318; Botany Worsted Mills V.N. L. R. B., 106 F. (26) 263 (C. C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B. V. Good Coal Co., 110 F. (26) 501(C. C. A. 6), certiorari denied 310 U. S. 630; Bussnmin Mfg. Co. V. N. L. R. B., 111 F.(2d) 783 (C. C. A. 8).a' American Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 309 U. S. 629.88 Arcadia Hosiery Co. v. N. L. 11. B., 112 F. (2d) 326 (C. C. A. 3), certiorari denied,61 S. Ct. 38 ; N. L. R. B. v. Asheville Hosiery Co. 108 F. (26) 288 (C. C. A. 4).89 Arcadia Hosiery Co. V. N. L. R. B., 112 F. (id) 326 (C. C. A. 3), certiorari dented61 S. Ct. 38 ; Montgomery Ward S Co. V. N. L. R. B., 107 F. (2d) 555 (C. C. A. 7);Kansas City Power S Light Co. v. N. L. R. B., 111 F. (2d) 340 (C. C. A. 8) ; SouthernColorado Power Co. v. N. L. 11. B., 111 F. (2d) 539 (C. C. A. 10).P Hartsell Mills Co. v. N. L. R. B., 111 F. (2d) 291 (C. C. A. 4) ; Montgomery WardCo. v. N. L. 11. B. 107 F. (2d) 555 (C. C. A. 7).91 N. L. R. B. v. Norfolk Shipbuilding d Drydock Corp., 109 F. (2d) 128 (C. C. A. 4) ;Empire Furniture Corp. V. N. L. R. B., 107 F. (2d) 92 (C. C. A. 6) ; N. L. R. B. V. BossMfg. Co., 107 F. (2d) 574 (C. C. A. 7).9 2 Montgomery Ward t6 Co. v. N. L. R. B., 107 F. (2d) 555 (C. C. A. 7) ; Cupp/es Co.Mfrs. V. N. L. R. B. 106 F. (2d) 100 (C. C. A. 8) ; Southern Colorado Power Co. v.N. L. R. B., 111 F. (2d) 569 (C. C. A. 10) ; and see Union Drawn Steel Co. V. N. L. R. B.,109 F. (26) 587 (C. C. A. 3).03 Arcadia Hosiery Co. V. N. L. R. B., 112 F. (2d) 326 (C. C. A. 3), certiorari denied,61 S. Ct. 38.9, Arcadia Hosiery Co. v. N. L. R. B. 112 F. (2d) 326 (C. C. A. 3), certiorari denied,61 S. Ct. 38; Kansas City Power d Light Co. V. N. L. R. B., 111 F. (26) 340 (C. C. A. 8) ;Southern Colorado Power Co. v. N. L. R. B., 111 F. (2d) 539 (C. C. A. 10).• Arcadia Hosiery Co. V. N. L. R. B., 112 F. (2d) 326 (C. C. A. 3), certiorari denied,61 S. Ct. 38_, • Union Drawn Steel Co. V. N. L. R. B., 109 F. (2d) 587 (C. C. A. 3) ;Montgomery TVard & Co. V. N. L. R. B. 107 F. (2d) 555 (C. C. A. 7).09 National Licorice Co. V. N. L. R. .13., 309 U. S. 350; Hartsell Mills Co. v. N. L. R. B.,111 F. (2d) 291 (C. C. A. 4);• N. L. R. B. v. Boss Mfg. Co., 107 F. (26) 574 (C. C. A. 7) ;N. L. R. B. v. Sunshine Mining Co., 110 F. (26) 780 (C. C. A. 9), certiorari denied January 13,1941; Continental Oil Co. v. N. L. R. B. 113 F. (2d) 473 (C. C. A. 10), certiorari grantedas to another issue, 61 S. Ct.72.• N. L. R. B. v. Griswold Mfg. Co., 106 F. (26) 713 (C. C. A. 3); N. L. I?. B. V. PiquaMunising Wood Products Co., 109 F. (26) 552 (C. C. A. 6) •, H. J. Heinz Co. V. N. L. R. B.;61 S. Ct. 320; Fort Wayne Corrugated Paper Co. v. N. L. R. B., ill F. (26) 869 (C. C. A. 7).
Page 3 and 4:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDWILLI
Page 6 and 7:
CONTENTSPageI. Introduction 1A. Wor
Page 8 and 9:
FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL
Page 10 and 11:
I. INTRODUCTIONThe number of worker
Page 12 and 13:
I. INTRODUCTION 5finding powers. In
Page 14 and 15:
I. INTRODUCTION 7percent. There was
Page 16 and 17:
II. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BO
Page 18 and 19:
III. PROCEDURE OF THE BOARDPrevious
Page 20 and 21:
IV. STATISTICAL RECORD OF BOARD ACT
Page 22 and 23:
IV. STATISTICAL RECORD OF BOA:RD AL
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26:
IV. STATISTICAL RECORD OF BOARD Ac,
Page 30 and 31:
TABLE I V.-Disposition of unfair la
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Region.TABLE VIII.—Disposition of
Page 36 and 37:
TABLE X.-Character and results of r
Page 38 and 39:
V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHEDIn previou
Page 40:
V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLIS.LLED 33coupl
Page 44 and 45:
V. PRINCiPLES ESTABLISHED 37tion. T
Page 46 and 47:
V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 39in the
Page 48 and 49:
V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 41conditi
Page 50 and 51:
V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 43majorit
Page 52 and 53:
V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 45"highly
Page 54 and 55: V. PRIN ICAPLES ESTABLISHED 47As we
Page 56 and 57: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 49resenta
Page 58 and 59: V. PRINCIPT.RS ESTABLISHED 51organi
Page 60 and 61: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 53the Tri
Page 62 and 63: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 55Baking
Page 64 and 65: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 57seek to
Page 66 and 67: V. PRINCLL'LES ESTABLISITED 59ineli
Page 68 and 69: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 61regardi
Page 70 and 71: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 63bargain
Page 72 and 73: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 65As note
Page 74 and 75: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 67ent rep
Page 76 and 77: V. PRINUPLES ESTABLISHED 69appropri
Page 78 and 79: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 71also be
Page 80 and 81: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 739. Prec
Page 82: V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 75work, s
Page 85 and 86: 78 FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL
Page 89 and 90: VI. JURISDICTIONThe decisions of th
Page 103: 96 FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL
Page 109 and 110: 102 FIFTFI ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONA
Page 131 and 132: IX. DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1
Page 151 and 152: 144 FIFTFI ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONA
Page 155 and 156:
148 FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
XII. FISCAL STATEMENTThe expenditur
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169:
show all

NATIONAL LAB RELATIONS BOARD - National Labor Relations ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?