NATIONAL LAB RELATIONS BOARD - National Labor Relations ...

62 FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDIn Matter of Whittier Mills Co., etc. and Textile Workers OrganizingCommittee,83 the employer claimed that a Board certification of alabor organization did not establish its majority representation 7months after issuance thereof because employment had diminishedduring this 7-month period. The Board rejected the employer'scontention, stating :To hold that, 7 months following certification by the Board of a collectivebargainingrepresentative, the employer can question with impunity the statusof the certified representative as a representative of a majority of the employees inthe appropriate unit, in the manner respondents here attempt to do, would be torender such a certification nugatory. The Congress cannot have intended bysection 9 (c) of the act to authorize the Board to do a futile and meaninglessthing. A certification would be futile and meaningless, could an employer,shortly thereafter, prior to carrying on any bargaining with the certified representative,by the simple expedient of raising some question as to the continuingvalidity of the certification, require the certified representative to prove anewits status as a majority representative. Collective bargining under such circumstancescould be indefinitely delayed by employers and the right of employeesto bargain collectively would be rendered illusory and the policies of the actthwarted. To prevent employers from thus flouting the act, to give meaning tothe Board's authority to certify representatives designated by employees inappropriate units, to effectuate the policies of the act, the presumption of thecontinuing effectiveness of such a certification by the Board must be held not tobe rebuttable, under the circumstances here presented, by evidence such as thathere introduced by the respondents.In Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines and Brotherhood of RailroadTrainmen,, 84 the employer argued that it was not obligated tobargain with the certified union, since subsequent to the certification,as well as at the time of the hearing in the complaint case, a majorityof the employees in the appropriate unit were dues-paying membersof, and had designated as collective-bargaining representative, a labororganization other than the one certified by the Board. Theemployer attempted to introduce documentary proof at the hearingin support of this contention. The Trial Examiner rejected theoffer. The Board sustained the ruling of the Trial Examiner andheld that the Board's certification was "not subject to nullificationor challenge by the parties so long as the certified representative isready and willing to bargain collectively and to establish contractualrelations with the employer in behalf of those represented, and areasonable period for it to do so has not elapsed. Stability of industrialrelations and effectuation of the purposes and policy of theact impel a construction of section 9 (c) which would secure theauthority of the certified representative to act for a reasonable period.Here only 3 months intervened between the issuance of thecertification and the filing of the complaint and, as found below, atno time did the respondent recognize or bargain collectively withthe Brotherhood although repeatedly requested to do so. * * *In the instant case any other rule would result in employees beingrequired to turn from representative to representative until some'3 15 N. L. Ft. B. 457, enf'd N. L. R. B. V. Whittier Mille Co., 111 F'. (2d) 474(C. C. A. 5).84 22 N. L. A. B., No. 12, reopened on July 27, 1940.