Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company And Its Subsidiaries, Westinghouse X-ray Company, Inc. And The Bryant Electric Company And United Electrical, Radio And Machine Workers Of America And Its Lo, 147 (1940)

Extract

---

Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company And Its Subsidiaries, Westinghouse X-ray Company, Inc. And The Bryant Electric Company And United Electrical, Radio And Machine Workers Of America And Its Lo, 147 (1940)

In the Matter of WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, WESTINGHOUSE X-RAY COMPANY, INC.

AND THE BRYANT ELECTRIC COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL,

RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA AND ITS LOCALS NOS. 601, 202, 1207, 107, 111, 130, 1105, 1412, AND 209 Case No. C-1241.-Decided March 29, 1940 Electrical Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing Industry-Interference,

Restraint, and Coercion-Units Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: nine units, each limited to employees in certain classifications at one or more of respondents' plants in one community; no dispute as to-Representatives:

proof of choice: allegations of complaint as to union's majority in each unit admitted in respondents' answer; no dispute as to-Collective Bargaining:

refusal to enter into oral or written agreements with union, although respondents and union reached accord on certain subjects; employer's duty: Act compels respondents to embody in binding agreements with union understandings reached; respondents may not bargain with union concerning whether or not understandings reached shall be embodied in contracts; grounds for refusal of:

alleged economic detriment to respondents and their employees is irrelevant in so far as respondents assert it warrants refusal to make binding agreements with union; circumstances of case, such as economic detriment from alleged boycott of respondents by another labor organization, are not such as to excuse respondents from normal requirement of Act that understandings reached must be incorporated in written agreements with union; statement of policy under circumstances of case fail to satisfy requirement of Act for: are not contracts between respondents and union; are at most individual contracts with individual employees, not collective agreement with union as Act requires; recognizes union only for purposes of negotiation and not for purposes of contracting; contractual nature doubtful and ambiguous; terminable at pleasure of employer alone; preclude union assuming responsibilities; deny union equal status with employer as contracting and contractually bound party; ordered to bargain with union and, if requested, to embody in written agreement with union any understandings reached-Procedure: petitions by rival labor organization requesting leave to intervene because employees in one unit allegedly changed affiliation and joined it, denied where Board had previously certified other union and where alleged shift occurred after respondents' refusal to bargain and after hearing in instant case.

Mr. Drexel A. Sprecher, for the Board.

Mr. Harold Smith and Mr. Donald C. Swatland, of New York City, for the respondents.

Mr. James J. Matles and Mr. Julius Emspak, of New York City, for the United and the Locals.

Mr. Daniel Carmell, of Chicago, Ill., for the Brotherhood, petitioner for leave to intervene.

Mr. Robert Kramer, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, herein called the United, and its Locals Nos. 601, 202, 1207, 107, 111, 130, 1105, 1412, and 209, herein collectively called the Locals, with the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, pursuant to permission duly granted by an Order of the Board, dated March 31, 1939, in accordance with Article II, Section 37, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, the Board issued its complaint, dated August 29, 1939, against Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and its subsidiaries, Westinghouse X-Ray Compilny, Inc.,

Long Island City, New York, and The Bryant Electric Company,

Bridgeport, Connecticut, herein collectively called the respondents, alleging that the respondents at their plants located in Bridgeport,

Connecticut; Long Island City, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Emeryville, California; Baltimore, Maryland; East Springfield, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and East Pittsburgh and Trafford, Pennsylvania, had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notices of hearing, were duly served upon the respondents, the United, and the Locals.

In respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that although a majority of the respondents' employees in each of nine appropriate units had designated some one of the nine Locals as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, the respondents, upon request, refused to bargain collectively with any of the Locals so designated as the exclusive representative of such employees, in that the respondents refused to enter into any written contract or any bin...

See the full content of this document

---