*1 v. NATION- LEBANON FOUNDRY STEEL AL BOARD. LABOR RELATIONS
No. Appeals for Dis- States
Unitеd Court Columbia. trict 29, 1942. June Decided Bethlehem, McFadden, Hugh Mr. P. 12,1942. Writ of Certiorari Denied Oct. Pa., petitioner. for - -, See U.S. -. Gross, S.Ct. L.Ed. Mr. Ernest A. Assistant General Watts, Counsel, whom Robert B. Mr. Knapp, Counsel, General Mr. Lawrence A. Counsel, Hilda and Mrs. Associate General Shea, Attorney, all the National D. Board, Washington, Labor all of Relations C., brief, respondent. D. on the GRONER, Justice, and Before Chief RUTLEDGE, Associate
STEPHENS and Justices.
RUTLEDGE, Associate Justice. question Shortly, narrow. it is cards, whether certain checkoff employees, constitute evidence of bargain collectively. stipulated It er’s employees petition- plant Lebanon, Pa., with certain ex- ceptions, appropriate constitute unit. Petitioner concedes that a in the unit the cards. The company declined, does, and still recognize the conferring authority cards as bargain. The Board has found them suf- ficient, has petitioner also that the found has guilty practice of unfair labor refusing bargain collectively designated union, or- W. and has appropriate dered relief. We think the order must be affirmed. facts, outline, Petitioner, follow. Foundry, Lebanon is Pennsylvania Steel corporation which manufactures variоus types castings steel interstate com- merce. There were between 585 and 623 employees in period. the unit the crucial September, thereafter, Prior to vague plan of em- ployees’ representation, indefinitely known independent group” as “the until nego- tiations, during apparently which it ac- quired “The name Association In- dependent Steel Foundry Lebanon Work- ers.” There evidence is no of its member- ship, half but less than voted employee representatives in the fall 1940; showing nor is there that it re- quested attempted recognition, negotiate agreement, or did much more grievances than deal with at various times. *2 405 replied company negotiations. Phillips was organization that the Board found The grievances, but contract would discuss organization was not a labor dormant1 it, study important, and would was he would Act. Wagner meaning of the within He meeting be held. advise when could Organizing (Steel Workers S. O. C. W. prepared give not them said he “was date; O., is I. Committee), affiliated with the C. days, might take might take 2(5) of organization within Section a labor satisfied, weeks, might take months.” Not the Act. Quinn, arranged with the com Fritchman 1940, petitioner’s September, some pany’s Phillips’ superior, for treasurer and application membership employees secured negotiating meeting officers and the W. O. C. organizer cards from an At meet committee on December 21. Seventy-three nearby plant. steel at a ing proof Fritchman offered these, held meeting was when a majority. The offer represented union representa- Fritchman, district S. W. O. C. Phillips in was treated with indifference. ter Employees then stated a desire tive. contract, dicated dissatisfaction with the their have union dues checked off any em company meet with said the would thеreupon wages. instructed Fritchman person employees, ployee representing De- (“Wage checkoff them to use dealing but also stated “we have the mem- Authority”) duction Independent Group bar as sole collective soliciting union bership application cards in gaining agency.”3 Thereafter the union signed the Employees who had members. se repeated efforts to made latter, exceptions, then with two attempted constantly, meetings, cure further only the thereafter checkoff cards and unsuccessfully, speed negotiations, but soliciting mem- were checkoff cards used Phillips’ finally insistence that gave they used The evidence that were bers. holidays. go matter until after the over undisputed. purpose this holidays passed, unsuccess When the testified, Fritchman without contradic- meeting efforts were made to secure a ful tion, the checkoff cards were used 10, January when the second earlier than throughout signify district one held. was membership to check off were meeting At this the checkoff cards dues; C.) (S. union W. O. presented, exam- but were counted or organizes plants customarily in that area company reprеsentatives. ques- ined No cards; employees sign having the concerning majority status was raised tion whose, employers plants and that any previously, nor was claim made then or organized accepted thus the checkoff cards “Independent Group” represented a that the employee’s desire to hearing trial majority. At the before the the union them. The trial ex- go Phillips testified he did not examiner aminer and the Board credited this testi- matter because he “intended into the mony. recognize and deal with the Union and Eventually employees signed 358 Group reprеsenta- Independent they cards. checkoff Fritchman testified respective members until the of their tives totalled 335 342 as of December each one was estab- definite status of January 1941. The union’s However, supplied) (Italics lished.”4 membership up lists were made them. permit intended at most to found he Board 16, 1940, Moyer, present grievances, on the December union to evi- On for the the committee,2 negotiating concerning his statements as made union’s submitted dence of the con- proposed Phillips, the conference. outcome plant manager, again him inconclusive and unsatis- represented told he ference was factory, negotiators charging employees, with union the union company “stalling.” was arrange begin him a date that the asked for that bargaining agency ed before Independent representation 1 2 He was also chairman of Phillips Cf. notes group. later 2 and 5 infra. intended to deal with “the Group” met that group, and Of. note 5 infra. qualified “until Moyer Phillips sole collective definite stat- employee assum saying acting us fore text at note used the implications. Board found agent” sel’s the brief of each Of. note 3 attemрt the trial without term “sole collective unconvincing. group was 4 this supra. infra. examiner he testified bolster it proper knowledge explanation examiner At the established.” Of. by argument hearing be- and coun- urges gathered the authority further must be expedite men The union tried to instrument, “from the four night, corners” of the meetings, offering meet Saturdays any Phil- reference the circumstances un- time. or at convenient signed, usages der which lips pre- another declined to do this or to fix *3 vailing as in regards him in the the called on area. Fritchman date then. When attorney, 13, powers the earliеst effect of January suggested, as he technical powers January convey mortgage realty, like to was or date he would consider insists, first, protested, pointed the union and that their Fritchman out con- nothing previous day tains to intention restive the indicate au- had become to and, second, adopted “further thorize bargaining ac- collective resolution by that agreement reached recourse the if no evidence tion” cannot concerning usage meet February again the sur- offered conditions efforts, including rounding threats night. give execution to the wоrds such Other official,” meaning. government in “a made call success. the advance date hand, theOn other the Board has found others with Fritchman and discussions and contends the cards show on their that upon Phillips a clear the 13th insisted on face intention collective bar- to authorize concerning grievances, between distinction gaining, and intent becomes indis- management disposed to deal was which putable read in when the cards are view agent designated as C. when with S. W. O. proven usages and the circumstances of members, by negotiations for a its says signature, of done. We think as the Board contract, lengthy and “required de- which clearly right. is the Board meantime, attention.” In the liberate used, Two forms of checkoff card were recog- company intended again, said follows: “Independent Group” nize deal Authority “Wage Deduction agent, until the collective as sole “Dated.......... group of was estab- status each definite “No........... lished. Paymaster “To the of Phillips had January after de- On hereby you “I to deduct from authorize meeting, expedite the S. W. again clined wages per my ($1.00) one dollar calendar charge filed with the Board. On O. C. month, of......, beginning the month with January field examiner held Board’s 19____provided I have worked a total of representatives of both a conference days during or (S) five more calendar made to settle An effort was sides. months. election, by a consent but failed matter payment Secretary- “This be sent Group” “Independent declined to when C., Treasurer David Mc- of J. go permit name to on the ballot with Donald, Building, 1500 Commonwealth C.’s,5 company and the declined S. W. Pittsburgh, Pa. in'writing that would to state authority during be effective “This if it should win good faith with agreement. This life of the will This on the advice the election. automaticаlly if, as and be cancelled when request put into writing “a counsel working labor and between already requires the law them that which Company your the S. W. O. C ter- capricious.” unreasonable and do is minates. company declined to con- Thereafter negotiations the union on tinue “(Signature) (Address)” that since the Board had ground intervened point in there would be no fur- in the case Authority Wage “1537 Deduction negotiations. ther “No........... Dated........... paymaster “To says only raises the case Petitioner you hereby deduct “I authorize question law whether check- from
narrow
amounting
my wages union dues
sufficient
their face as
to one
are
on
evi-
off cards
month,
per
provided
bargain collectively.
($1.00)
calendar
dollar
dence
company
on this
condition
thrown
the fact
six of
consented on
representatives
nine
chosen at
the names
both S. W. O. O.
the last
adherents,
appear
independent group
including
bal-
were union
election
Moyer.
supra.
latter’s
informed
Of. note
lot. The
declined to
written
did not wish to
then
the field examiner
assurance
Light
participate
C.,
election.
is
it would
with S. W. O.
if it
required merely
intent
more
(5)
I
total
five
have worked a
month;
my
person
em
days
organization
other
act as the
the calendar
ployees’ representative
bar
specified below)
(amount
initiation fee
gaining. This
one month
intent has been found
which shall be deducted within
you
participating
strike
taken
from the date
received this card
vote
union,7
union,8 and
Secretary
strike called
the Financial
the local union.
acceptance
(Italics
benefits.9 It
supplied)
of strike
necessary
it be manifested
some
“Money so
David
deducted to
sent to
be
capable
proof,
manner
whether
McDonald, Secretary-Treasurer
J.
havior
is not
language.
Oral
Build-
S. W. O.
1500 Commonwealth
merely,
always,
invalid.
more
ing, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
*4
Lawyers’ formulae,
prove.
for
difficult to
only
“This
shall
be effective
The
malities and words are not needed.
during
laborers’,
or
are
agreements
authorizations
your
between the S. W. O. C. and
Com-
scriveners’, expressions
not
of intention.
pany
system.
includes the check-off
They
expected
be
in
work
are
to made
fee,
Initiation
$..........
manner,
ingman’s
manage
not in that of
corporate affairs,
ment
it conducts
as
“(Signature)
(Address)”
lawyer
side.
requires
spe
Wagner
The
Act
no
prin
rules
For
same reason
cific form of
collective
ciples
simple,
construction
should
ly.
It
statute
frauds
is
act
liberal,
variety.10
commonsense
prescribing
conveyancing.
the formalities of
Apart
highly
from such
technical matters
writing
required
No
is
seal or
its terms.
deeds,
bonds,
mortgages,
things as
as
any special
Nor
formula or form of
custom, usage
in
the circumstances
and
may
Authority
given by
words.
action
parties
generally
which the
act
application
in words. An
well as
shown to
to written instruments
membership implies authority to bar
union
gain.
parties
they made
had when
intention
L.
v.
Refining
N.
R. B.
Louisville
them11
Co., Cir., 1939,
678, 680,
102
6
F.2d
cer
1939,
and
denied,
568,
usages,
Labor has its own
customs
tiorari
81,
308
60
U.S.
S.Ct.
always
477;
practices.
persons
N.
Other
are not
84 L.Ed.
L. R. B. v. Somerset
Co., Cir., 1940,
681,
longer
are
them. Unions
Shoe
1
111 F.2d
687. familiar with
Likewise,
registration cards,
amorphous stage
have
in the
in which
Matter
Co., Inc.,
doing things.
File
no traditions or mores for
Elbe
and Binder
and
of.
Bookbinders, etc.,
119,
They
vocabulary
Local
2 N. L.
now
No
R.
own,
906,
instances
unintel
(1937), notwithstanding
B.
910
their
some
signers
paid
ligible
Gaelic to Greek.12
have not
dues
initiation
fees
outsiders
customs,
membership.6
practices,
un
agreements
admitted to
The
or been
Not
and
unions, membership
intent,
form,
thing.
derstandings
is the
relating
essential
The
but
America,
ed
Workers
B.
International
Chauffeurs,
652;
B.
bile Workers
tion
never
tor
should win the election.
5
conference on
Cir., 1939,
7
6
N.
on other
231,
had never seen
In re C. A. Lund
Matter
Bearing
enforced,
International
for the
L.
heard it called
Matter of Clifford
237
R.
Local
Union,
of National Motor
(1936).
grounds,
B.
(1938),
4U authority, bargaining upon proof the assert- orally) authoriza- testimony ed employer. indifference tion. To the еxtent usage respect of the check- establishes ap- I that the think there was no evidence usage off it establishes pellant’s employees C. had chosen S. and such knowledge S. W. O. C. bargaining, them for collective organized. plants companies as it charge and that therefore the Board’s usage It does not establish appellant the unfair had committed of, bring home at all to knowledge it practice labor col- of refusal of, appellant; it does not employees lectively with the chosen usage notorious show the to have been so of its employees proof. failed of community must in the that such can of it. I charged knowledge weight argument of no the testi- majority that Board and of the mony concerning usage uncontradicted. testimony was, think, I ineffective If ought prove knew that the STATES. UNITED v. MUMFORDE cards, the check-off known that to have No. 7992. implied col- lacking express or although upon their bargaining authorization lective Appeals for the Court States United constitute face, meant to nevertheless District Columbia. authorization, bargaining absence strengthened Argued cannot June contradiction. 29, 1942. June Decided persuasive anything find I unable to am special majority view that no 12,1942. Writ Oct. of Certiorari Denied required of words or form formula — n -, 87 L.Ed. -. See 63 S.Ct. U.S. evi- Act to Relations National Labor collectively for dence statute Act is not a employees—that prescribing nor a statute frauds law- and that conveyancing formalities of are not yers’ and formalities formulae sets I think but argument requisite. This There knock down. up a straw man col- appellant that a contention be evi- choice has lective document, technically worded denced fairly think be can I such contention and no *8 must that there insistence attributed evidence of some substantial precisions of bargain. The conveyancing and necessary the art of requisite. All of course like are simple clearly necessary is words part indicating intention collective bar- their choose as persons claim- gaining even such so chosen. Not ing to have in this case. shown are words upon reliance think appellant is also I indifference However indifferent point. beside been toward appellant the existence of latter bargaining purposes cannot upon It must such indifference. be founded upon the existence founded