Extract
Brookville Glove Co., 213 (1962)
RR00KVILLE GLOVE COMPANY- t 213 -employees at, its Kalamazoo, Michigan,- operations, excluding.-office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors,as defined in the Act.
[The Board certified Independent Union of Sutherland Paper Company Employees, Inc., affiliated with United Paper Workers of America, CIO, as the designatedicollective-bargainingrepresentative of the employees of ^ Sutherland Paper Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan, in the unit hereinabove found to be appropriate.],David G. Leach and Doyle H. Wallace, d/b/a Brookville Glove Company 'and Westie_ K.'Shirk, Shirley Dempsey, Pearl Johns,Ruth Wright, Geraldine -Deemer, Barbara A. Fritz, Clary,Cook, Edwin G. Bish, - Beatrice Edna Aikens, Clara -Luther,Mary Jane McCool, Bessie Viola Plyier, Mona Shaffer, Peggy A. Snyder Josephine _V. Whitehill, Norma Lee Snyder, Alberta -Kerr, Lois Jean Boarts, Donna Bowen, Margaret N. Bowen, and Dale V. Carnahan. Case No. 6-CA-770. October 6,1955 DECISION AND ORDEROn July 16, 1954, Trial-Examiner Sidney L. Feiler issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and, were-engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and submitted a supporting brief.The Board has-reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record-in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the, modifications, additions, and-exceptions stated below.1. We agree with the Trial - Examiner , that the Respondents discharged the '21' complaining strikers- in this case because they refused to, abandon an economic strike and return to work within a certain date designated by the Respondents, in violation of Section ,8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. The. Respondents contend, however, that the strike was illegal and that the strikers are not entitled to the protection of the Act because they participated in a strike whose ' objective was recognition of a labor organization not in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act? 114 NLRB No. 52.214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find no merit in this contention. There is no precedent in support of the Respondents' position.' On the contrary, in Rubin Bros., 99 NLRB 610, 619, the Board rejected a contention similar to that now liiged by the Respondents. The Act does not proscribe bargaining with a noncomplying union; indeed, consonant with public policy, an employer may voluntarily recognize and deal with such a union? If Congress had intended the Act to have the effect urged by the Respondents, it easily could have inserted an express provision in the statute to accomplish such result. This, Congress did not do. While the union in this case could not use the processes of this Board to obtain recognition as bargaining representative in view of its failure to comply with Section 9 (h) of the Act, we are not persuaded that Congress intended to withhold protection of the Act against. di...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
