NATIONAL LAB RELATIONS BOARD - National Labor Relations ...

V. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 63bargaining agency satisfactory to the employer was found." 83 Inthe Calumet Steel case the Board also held that a Board certification,even during the pendency of the employer's motion challenging itsvalidity, was adequate proof of majority representation. In Matterof Charles Cushman Company," the Board ruled that its certificationwas adequate proof of majority representation in a complaintproceeding although the company, a successor corporation, had notbeen a party to the representation proceeding and its predecessor,who had been a party thereto, had committed the refusal to bargain.G. THE UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVEBARGAINING1. IN GENERALSection 9 (b) of the Act provides that—The Board shall decide in each case whether, in order to insure to employeesthe full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining,and otherwise to effectuate the policies of this act, the unit appropriate for thepurposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plantunit, or subdivision thereof.Such a determination is required in two types of cases: (1) casesinvolving petitions for certification of representatives, pursuant tosection 9 (c) of the Act, and (2) cases involving charges that anemployer has refused to bargain collectively with the representativesof his employees, in violation of section 8 (5) - of the Act. In eachinstance, a finding as to the appropriate unit is indispensable tothe ultimate decision. A certification of representatives would bemeaningless in the absence of a finding defining the unit to be represented.Similarly, a complaint alleging that an employer has refusedto bargain collectively with the representatives of his employeesmay be sustained only if such representatives were designated byemployees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collectivebargainingAs pointed out in previous annual reports, 87 the complexity ofmodern industry, transportation, and communication, and the numerousand diverse forms which self-organization among employees cantake and has taken, preclude the application of rigid rules to thedetermination of the unit appropriate for the purposes of collectivebargaining In attempting to ascertain the groups among whichthere is that mutual interest in the objects of collective bargainingwhich must exist in an appropriate unit, the Board takes into con-Also, Matter of Calumet Steel Division, etc. and Amalgamated Association of Iron,Steel, and Tin Workers of North America, etc., 23 N. L. R. B.. No. 12; Matter of ClarkShoe Co. and United Shoe Workers of America, 17 N. L. R. B. No. 1079. See In thisconnection N. L. R. B. v. Piqua Munising Wood Products Co., 109 F. (2d) 55e (C. C. A.6), enf'g Matter of Piqua Munising Wood Products Co. and Federal Labor Union Local18787, 7 N. L. R. B. 782, wherein the Circuit Court of Appeals stated :"It is a well-established rule of evidence that when the existence of a personal relationshipor state of things is once established by proof, the law presumes its continuanceuntil the contrary is shown or until a different presumption arises from the nature ofthe subject matter. N. L. R. R. V. National Motor Bearing Company, 105 F. (2d) 652(C. C. A. 9). The question as to the presumption of the continuation of membershipin the Union was one of fact and rested within the sound discretion of the Board to bedecided in the light of the facts and circumstances before it." Cf. Matter of WestinghouseElectric & Manufacturing Company et at., and United Electrical, Radio and MachineWorkers of America et al., 22 N. L. R. B., No. 13.Matter of Charles Cushman Company et al. and United Shoe Workers of America,15 N. L. R. B. 90. The successor corporation, the Board noted, was owned by the samestockholders as the predecessor and had substantially the same directors and officers,thus insuring a continuity of management.n Third Annual Report, p. 160; Fourth Annual Report, p. 82.