NATIONAL LAB RELATIONS BOARD - National Labor Relations ...

V. PRIN ICAPLES ESTABLISHED 47As we regard the entire record the conclusion is inescapable that the respondentsneither bargained nor intended to bargain collectively with the union. Theyshrewdly recognized the union for what it claimed to be and accorded it thecourtesy of interviews. They listened with respectful attention to the union'sdemands and pretended to weigh and trade advantage against disadvantage asmight be expected of persons genuinely engaged in a bargaining effort. Theyaffected some semblance of an endeavor to reach a mutunl understanding buton scrutinizing the verbiage to which they resorted we find that this effort waspalpably insincere.It is also well established that the employer is not complying withthe terms of section 8 (5) unless he accords to the statutory representativeexclusive recognition.88 The Board has held that there is includedin the employer's obligation under section 8 (5) as a reasonablyappropriate method of precluding an employer from making itnugatory a duty, upon request of the union, to incorporate into awritten contract which the parties are negotiating full recognition ofthe union in express terms as exclusive bargaining agent. Similarly,the Board held it to be an unfair labor practice within section 8 (5)for the employer to insist that the collective bargaining contractrecognize the statutory representative as exclusive representative onlyso long as it continued to represent a majority of the employees andempower the employer to call an election whenever the employer desiredto determine whether the union still represented a majority."The employer's duty to accept the procedure of collective bargainingas historically practiced also requires a willingness to meet theexclusive representative in personal conferences and negotiations.The Board so held in the Lorillard cases :Bargaining in the field of labor relations is customarily carried on over theconference table at which the representatives of both parties confront each otherand exercise that personal and oral persuasion of which they are capable.While it may be that negotiations through the mails or by other indirect methodsfulfills the statutory requirement when both parties accept that procedure, wethink it clear that the act contemplates that under ordinary circumstances personalconferences should be held if requested by either party.In these cases, the Board also held "that the procedure of collectivebargaining requires that the employer make his representatives availablefor conferences at reasonable times and places and in such amanner that personal negotiations are practicable" and that "thequestion of whether the employer has furnished reasonable facilitiesfor collective bargaining is a question of fact in each case." TheBoard found on the facts of those cases that the employer by its refusalto engage in face-to-face conferences with the statutory representativein the cities where the plants were located, and by its insistencethat conferences be held only in New York City which wasdistant from the location of the plants in question, had not furnishedreasonable facilities for collective bargaining and consequently hadnot fulfilled its obligation to bargain collectively under section 8 (5)of the act.to Third Annual Report. pp. 100-102.a Matter of Mc Quay-Norris Manufacturing Co. and United Automobile Workers ofAmerica, Local 226, 21 N. L. R. B., No. 72, citing, inter' alia, Art Metals Construction CO. V.N. L. R. B., 110 F. (2d) 148 (C. C. A. 2).° Matter of Woodside Cotton Mills and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 21N. L. R. B • No. 7.91 Matter of P. Lorillard Company, Middletown, Ohio, and Pioneer Tobacco Workers Localetc., 18 N. L. R. B. 483; Matter of P. Lorillard Company, Louisville, Kentucky, and LocalUnion No. 201, etc., 16 N. L. R. B. 703.