NATIONAL LAB RELATIONS BOARD - National Labor Relations ...

V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 49resentatives to sign the statements of policy, and would not enterinto a binding contract, written or oral, with the statutory representativesalthough the parties had reached an accord on the termsto be embodied in such contract. The Board, after reviewing indetail the Board and court precedents, the contentions advanced byemployers for refusing to embody understandings reached in signedbinding contracts, the circumstances under which the act requiressuch contracts, and the reasons for the requirement under the circumstanceswhere it is required, held that the companies, by refusingto enter into signed binding agreements embodying understandingsreached with the statutory representatives, refused to bargain collectively,or in good faith, as required by section 8 (5) of the Act.The Board summarized its conclusions with respect to the companystatements of policy as follows :The fact that the contractural nature of the statement of policy is doubtfuland ambiguous ; the fact that its obligations may be changed or terminated atthe pleasure of the employer alone, irrespective of the desires of the employeesor of their representatives and without prior negotiation with them; the factthat it recognizes the union as the representative of employees for the purposesof negotiation only and not for the purposes of contracting, thereby denying theunion recognition at the most vital points of the bargaining process; the factthat it precludes the employees' representative accepting responsibility for, andagreeing to prevent, strikes by the peaceful adjustment of disputes; the fact thatit denies the employees' representative equal status and dignity with the employeras a contracting and contractually bound party ; all lead us to find that such astatement will defeat the policies and purposes of the act by discouraging thepractice and procedure of collective bargaining and thereby increasing costlyand destructive industrial strife and instability. We find that the signedstatements of policy of the respondents do not satisfy the requirements forcollective bargaining of section 8 (5) of the act.D. DOMINATION AND INTERFERENCE WITH THE FORMATION OR AD-MINISTRATION OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND CONTRIBUTINGFINANCIAL OR OTHER SUPPORT TO ITSection 8 (2) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for anemployer—to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labororganization 96 or contribute financial or other support to it.'1Pursuant to the clear intent and wording of section 8 (2), theBoard has proscribed any form of employer participation in the formationor administration of a labor organization. 98 In determiningwhat constitutes such employer participation, the Board has takeninto consideration the fact that employers necessarily act throughnumerous individuals with varying degrees of authority. Whetheror not a particular individual represents the employer must rest uponthe circumstances of each case. Thus, in Matter of West OregonLumber Co. and Lumber ce Sawmill Workers Local Union, No. 3,By section 2 (5) of the act a "labor organization" is defined as "any organization ofany kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employeesparticipate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employersconcerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employfnent, or conditionsof work.".7 A proviso to the section reads as follows : "Provided, That subject to rules and regulationsmade and published by the Board pursuant to section 6 (a), an em ployer shall not beprohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours withoutloss of time or pay." The Board has not found it necessary to issue any rules or regulationson this point.96 Third Annual Report, p. i09; Fourth Annual Report, p. 69.