페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

local in the employer's plant had not complied. In this case,

54 the Board issued a conditional order for the employer to bargain with the international union if the local complied with the filing requirements within 30 days. In another case where an international and all its locals in the plants of an employer were joint parties to contracts covering a company-wide bargaining unit, the question arose as to whether all locals had to be in compliance before an order to bargain could be issued based upon charges filed by one of the locals. The Board ruled that it was sufficient that the charging local and its parent international be in compliance.35 The compliance status of the other locals which were representing other employees of the employer was held to be immaterial.

A union's noncompliance, however, does not prevent the Board from ordering it to bargain in good faith upon request of an employer. In the Chicago Typographical Union case, 38 the Board held that a union found to have refused to bargain in violation of section 8 (b) (3) may not assert its own noncompliance as a bar to an order directing it to bargain collectively upon the employer's request.

6. Compliance in Representation Cases

During the past year, the Board again has had to pass upon a variety of questions regarding compliance with the filing requirements on the part of unions seeking to participate in representation proceedings.37

The Board has continued to require that a local union be in compliance although the petition in its behalf was filed by the parent organization. However, in one case 38 where a noncomplying local achieved compliance after the parent's petition had been dismissed, the Board, in the absence of intervening representation claims, directed an election without requiring that a new petition be filed. Similarly, the Board declined to dismiss a petition where a noncomplying local, which acted jointly with the petitioner, achieved compliance 4 days after the filing of the petition.

34 General Armature & Manufacturing Co., 89 NLRB No. 50. 25 Potlatch Forests, Inc., 87 NLRB 1193.

8$ Chicago Newspaper Publisher: A880ciation (Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, et al.), 86 NLRB 1041.

37 C1. Fourteenth Annual Report (1949) pp. 13–15.

The Board's holding that the filing requirements of sec. 9 are not applicable to such autonomous organizations as the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the American Federation of Labor (see Fourteenth Annual Report, p. 15) has been litigated in the courts. It was approved by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (West Texas Utilities Co. v. N. L. R. B., July 10, 1950, 26 L. R. R. M. 2359). However, a contrary view was taken by the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Fifth Circuits (N. L. R. B. v. Highland Park Manufacturing Co., September 2, 1950 (C. A. 4), 26 L. R. R. M. 2531, and N. L. R. B. v. Postex Cotton Mills, Inc., 181 F. 2d 919 (C. A. 5)). The Board is contemplating the submission of the question to the Supreme Court.

88 United States Gypsum Co., 86 NLRB 200.

39

a. Lapse of Compliance

In a number of representation cases, the Board was confronted with the lapse of the compliance status of one of the participating unions. Where the petitioner's compliance lapsed prior to the hearing and was not renewed after notice, the regional director's dismissal of the petition was sustained although the petitioner subsequently renewed its compliance.40 On the other hand, where the compliance status of a petitioner which was the only union seeking certification had lapsed since the hearing, the Board issued a Direction of Election conditioned upon the petitioner's renewal of its compliance status within 2 weeks. *1 The same procedure was followed in cases in which the compliance status of one or both of two joint petitioners had lapsed since the hearings.42 But where there were intervenors, the name of the petitioner whose compliance status had lapsed since the beginning of 4 or after the hearing, was ordered deleted from the ballot unless the petitioner renewed its compliance within 2 weeks from the date of the Direction of Election.4 Likewise, the name of an intervenor whose compliance had lapsed since the hearing was placed on the ballot, subject to deletion in case of the intervenor's failure to renew its compliance within 2 weeks from the date of the Direction of Election. But where the intervenor's compliance status had lapsed after the election, the Board directed that a majority vote in favor of the intervenor shall not be certified pending the renewal of its compliance.

* Lennox Furnace Co., Inc., 86 NLRB 698. 40 Peter8 Sausage Co., 7-RC-858, and Detroit Lumber Yard, 7-RC-908, June 15, 1950.

"E. g., Reynolds Metals Co., 85 NLRB 110; Lundahl Motors, Inc., 85 NLRB 224; Beaunit Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 316 ; Bulletin Co. (Homemakers Center), 85 NLRB 568; Sun Ray Drug Co., 87 NLRB 208; Grace Motor Sales, Inc., 88 NLRB No. 90 ; Porto Rican Express Co., 88 NLRB No. 166; Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc., 89 NLRB No. 28. See also Grinnell Brothers, 88 NLRB No. 85, where the petitioner was also the union named in the petition Aled by the employer,

42 Plywood-Plastics Corp., 85 NLRB 265; The Fuller Automobile Co., 88 NLRB No. 245; Milk Products Manufacturers' A88ociation, 88 NLRB No. 80.

13 The Association of Motion Pictures Producers, Inc., et al., 87 NLRB 657.
44 Nicholson Transit Co., 85 NLRB 955 ; Soller Sugar Co., Inc., 85 NLRB 755.

45 See e. g., W. B. Willett Co., 85 NLRB 761 ; Radio Station WLAV, WLAV-FM, and WLAV-TV, 87 NLRB 1570; American Hoist & Derrick Co., 88 NLRB No. 56; Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 88 NLRB No. 172; Hoke, Inc., 88 NLRB No. 255 ; Pratt & Letchworth Co., Inc., 89 NLRB No. 23 ; International Harvester Co., Tractor Works, 89 NLRB No. 26; Atlas Imperial Diesel Engine Co., et al., 89 NLRB No. 42; East Tennessee Packing Co., 89 NLRB No. 73; Lone Star Cement Corp., 88 NLRB No. 92; The Schaible Co., 88 NLRB No.

46 Columbia Picture Corp., et al., 86 NLRB 1085.

b. Compliance of Intervenors

A noncomplying union which has a contractual interest in a representation proceeding will be permitted to intervene 47 for all purposes, except it will not be placed on the ballot. 48

Absent a contractual interest, intervention generally is denied to a noncomplying union, even though the union seeking intervention has previously been certified and is taking steps leading to compliance at some time following the hearing 50 But in one case, a union was permitted to intervene after the hearing and was placed on the ballot where compliance was effected after the hearing and the renewed request to intervene was based on employee authorizations acquired prior to the hearing:51 The general rule was applied also to a craft union which was not in compliance. Accordingly intervention for the purpose of craft severance was denied ; 62 and a craft union whose compliance has lapsed after the hearing will be removed from the ballot unless compliance is renewed.58

Joint intervenors will be denied a place on the ballot if one of them is not in compliance. But where the compliance of one of two locals, which had intervened jointly with their international, lapsed after the hearing, and where a third local which had a joint interest with the international and the other two locals also was not in compliance, all four organizations were conditionally placed on the ballot and were to be removed jointly unless compliance was achieved by all. In another case, however the Board placed on the ballot a complying international and its local, but omitted therefrom two other internationals and their locals because of the latters' lack of compliance. The omitted unions were to receive a place on the ballot in case of their later compliance.56 In cases where intervention is sought on the basis of contractual interests, permission of noncomplying unions to appear on the ballot is condiitoned upon compliance.57

47 General Electric Co., Medford Plant, 85 NLRB 150; The Liquid Carbonic Corp., Medical Gas Division, 85 NLRB 284; Hygrade Food Products Corp., 85 NLRB 841; Hygrade Food Products Corp. (Supro Meat Products Co.) 85 NLRB 853; Heyden Chemical Corp., 85 NLRB 1181 ; Westinghouse Electric Corp., 87 NLRB 463. But see Joseph E. Knox d Co., Inc., 86 NLRB 1257, where intervention was denied to an international since its local was permitted to intervene on the basis of a contract interest, and the international's position was thereby adequately presented.

48 Reynolds Metals Co., 85 NLRB 110 ; see also Pyrene Manufacturing Co., 89 NLRB No. 208, where the intervenor had "never" effected compliance.

49 See Brewer & Brewer Sons, Inc., 85 NLRB 387 ; Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., 87 NLRB 597 ; John Dritz & Sons, 88 NLRB No. 262.

50 Sunbeam Corp., 87 NLRB 123. 51 Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., 87 NLRB 597. 52 Boeing Airplane Co., et al., 86 NLRB 368. 63 Calumet and Hecla Consolidated Copper Co. (Wolverine Tube Division), 86 NLRB 126. 64 Champion Blower & Forge Co., 88 NLRB No. 162. B5 Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Co., et al, 89 NLRB No. 8.

Indianapolis Cleaners & Launderers Club, 87 NLRB 472. See also International Har. vester Co., West Pullman Works, 89 NLRB No. 53.

57 California Walnut Growers A88ociation, 86 NLRB 28; Joseph E. Know & Co., Inc., 86 NLRB 1257 ; International Harvester Co., Melroso Park Plant, 87 NLRB 1101.

c. Compliance of Affiliates 58

The Board has also had occasion to determine in a number of cases whether the petition of an international union was barred because of the noncompliance of the affiliate which eventually might represent the employees involved. In one case, compliance by the international, which was shown to be the real party in interest, was held sufficient, and it was held immaterial whether or not the international's constitution required the establishment of a local for the purpose of consummating collective bargaining:59 Compliance by a petitioning international was likewise held to be sufficient where it did not appear that a local, whose officers had been elected by the employees in the unit, existed as a functioning organization. But the petitioning parent of a noncomplying local, which did not appear to be the real party in interest, was placed on the ballot only with the understanding that its certification was to be vacated if later it should be shown that the noncomplying local participated in representation of the employees concerned.61 Similarly, where it was not clear whether a noncomplying local existed as a functioning organization, the complying international was placed on the ballot, but its participation in the election was conditioned upon full compliance by any local which might bargain for employees in several units.62 Intervening internationals were similarly omitted from the ballot where there was no clear showing that their noncomplying contracting locals were no longer in existence.63

In decertification proceedings, a noncomplying union will be placed on the ballot, but if it wins the election, it will be certified only if it is then in compliance 64 or has renewed its lapsed compliance. In the absence of such compliance, only the arithmetic results of the election will be certified.

68 The compliance of parent federations is discussed in footnote 37, supra. 69 Farrell-Cheek Steel Co., 88 NLRB No. 83. 60 General Bor Co., 89 NLRB No. 163. 61 Manistee Salt Works, 85 NLRB 147. See also Wells Manufacturing Corp., 85 NLRB 23.

62 Electric Products Co., 89 NLRB No. 24; Consolidated Electric Lamp Co. (Champion Lamp Works Division), 89 NLRB No. 41 ; Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., 89 NLRB No. 52; Apes Electrical Manufacturing Co., 89 NLRB No. 60; Signal Manufacturing Co., 89 NLRB No. 65. See General Motors Corp., Frigidaire Division, et al., 88 NLRB No. 112.

For other situations in which the foregoing principles were applied see Westinghouse Electric Corp., 89 NLRB No. 11; Baldwin Locomotive Works, Eddystone Division, 89 NLRB No. 38; Fostoria, Ohio, Works of the National Carbon Division, Union Carbide and Carbon Corp., 89 NLRB No. 63; Foote Bro8. Gear & Machine Corp., 89 NLRB No. 103; Foster Wheeler Corp., 89 NLRB No. 105; General Instrument Corp., 89 XLRB No. 135; Philco Corp., 89 NLRB No. 112; General Electric Co., 89 NLRB No. 120; Lennox Manufacturing Co., 89 NLRB No. 183.

63 Bowen Products Corp., 89 NLRB No. 20; Easy Washing Machine Corp., 89 NLRB No. 27.

64 Hercules Powder Co., 89 NLRB No. 3; Stauffer Chemical Co. of Texas, 85 NLRB 595; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 90 NLRB No. 60.

65 Sterling Tool & Manufacturing Co., 89 NLRB No. 9.

Representation and Union-Shop Cases The act requires that an employer bargain with the representative

HE act requires that an employer bargain with the representative selected by a majority of his employees in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining. In determining the employees' choice for a bargaining agent, the Board may act only after a petition has been filed by the employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf, or by the employer. Once a petition has been properly filed, the Board has full statutory power to determine the employees' choice of collective bargaining representative in any business or industry where a labor dispute might affect interstate commerce with the major exceptions of agriculture, railroads, and airlines. It does not always exercise that power, however, where small or local enterprises are involved. It also has the power to determine the unit of employees appropriate for collective bargaining.

The Board may formally certify a collective bargaining representative in a representation case only upon the basis of the results of a Board-conducted secret ballot election. Once certified by the Board, the bargaining agent is the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. The right of a bargaining agent to exclusive representative status, however, is limited by a statutory proviso that any individual employee or group of employees has the right to present grievances to their employer and to have such grievances adjusted, without the intervention of the bargaining representative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of any collective bargaining contract that may then be in effect. The statute requires, however, that the bargaining representative must be given an opportunity to be present at the adjustment.

The act also empowers the Board to conduct an election to decertify an incumbent bargaining agent which has been previously certified or which is being currently recognized by the employer. Decertification petitions may be filed by employees or individuals, or by labor organizations acting on behalf of employees.

« 이전계속 »