*1 KERNER, Before SPARKS Circuit BRIGGLE, Judges, Judge. District BRIGGLE, Judge. District its Petitioner seeks order enforcement August requiring Penokee Ven- Spliced-Wood Corpora- Company and eer interfering to “cease and desist from tion right bargain their with 12-381, collectively through In- Local No-. Woodworkers of America C..I. ternational * * bargain with attempting to O. individually by any like or or related acts.” of, complained and of which conduct guilty have been found the defendants 8(a) the Board is said violate Section Act, National Labor Relations (1), of the 158.1 29 U.S.C.A. 49 Stat. § for determination The narrow sent certain communication respondent companies on an construed to be can be which communica labor practice, unfair full in Footnote 2.2 out in tion set are two Wisconsin cor- Tuesday, April practice in a further atives shall be “It employer— the strike. settle effort to meeting with, restrain, Lam- Mr. “At outset “(1) or tlio interfere To minimum the union’s announced in the bert exercise coerce guaranteed stated 7.” demands in section addition, Company the union was now de- Veneer “Penokee —Ballot” ques- reopen manding return desire “Do days’ hours, timo on no- tion of conditions Company the further discussion After some tice. demand, meeting the union’s 9th? ion at the n n proposal settling dis- submitted transcript pro- pute. A verbatim Yes made, together posal the union’s an- 1946. repre- it, is Employees: swer to enclosed. “To Our again requested that request sentatives of U. S. Conciliation “At employees for posal Commissioner, submitted John Luecke. rejection. acceptance represent representatives met *2 869 Wisconsin, C.I. America, with the affiliated Mellen, workers of porations, at located among organization program O. initiated an' procurement and in the engaged and Proc- companies which 3 employees the vari- of and the manufacture essing logs of Septem- the certification on about culminated in types Penokee ous veneers. of union, exclu- as the 65, and a ber of Spliced-Wood employees, the of A. MacDonald sive company, F. called the third duction, employees defendant, service maintenance and party Company (originally a companies. In the On involved) employees. the of three not now meetings, collective numerous a following the International Wood- summer many Company management “Penokee Veneer “Spliced-Wood has “Your received Corporation majority a that em- indications go out strike “F. MacDonald never wanted to on A. proportion “Company’s proposition further, great offered that a employees Meeting Al- at on 1946: desire to return to work. ion proposition requested though “Hoebreekx: I have a on several oc- we have employees given you to set- that be make that is our final effort casions opportunity here down, thing. on You it secret ballot better take vote tle Lambert, returning to on the don’t to mis- the work because I want be quoted. proposed by companies, un- basis consistently agreeable company refused to conduct to make the ion has “The is February Believing that such an effective election. five cents increase princi- contrary Only employees unfair and ple American those who return 8th. keep minority plant for a week one within employment, gainful your retroactivity. opens qualify from a management will It’s just proposes figured retroactivity to find out out that would many approximately per want to return to amount to ten dollars how employee. work. agree “We will to reconsider enclosing are “We a on herewith card any August 1st, rates proposal time after which question appears, de- which ‘Do withdrawn which to return to sire work under the agreeable we are now to reinstate. hours, working conditions as is, August “Luocke: That on 1st union at the meet- to. open up wages. could 9th?’ The a card contains right, John, just “Hoebreekx: That’s voting ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ block Enclosed less than three and a half months from stamped envelope is also a self-addressed this time. mailing for use the card back to the agreeable are “We reduce en- company. arranged We have to have period days. trance rate from 00 to 30 Joseph Webb, attorney, open Mr. local daily qualifications, “On the overtime the ballots and make a tabulation agreeable quali- are we to withdraw votes If in sufficient received. daily fication on overtime with the un- operations numbers to commence derstanding repeat- that who work, to return to desire the com- edly absent without are will be sub- cause pany at a will later date announce the ject discharge. That accords with the plant. reopening of at that We will suggestion handling Union’s for the time announce number em- that situation. ployees who have indicated a desire to “On security, Union stat- (cid:127) return to work. ago ed time some that it did not feel the wages, hours, “The condi- responsibility Union had sufficient prevail tions which will will be same integrity companies’ to warrant as- expired those effect under un- maintaining membership. sistance in agreement propos- ion as modified very way. still feel much We the same al made to hand, the union and attached hereto. a On other convenience to repeatedly stated, “As only, we have our and for no that em- reason ployee agree any compulsion monthly we will to deduct dues to return for all who authorize the com- to work under the conditions offered. We pany writing so, to do such authoriza- emphasize wish to these days’ tion to revocable on 30 be notice who elect to remain out on will strike be employee company. Inci- accorded full under State dentally, only is the kind of check- and Federal labor laws. legal under state laws. That off proposition. is our “We ask the enclosed card be by April 22nd, returned time “Lambert: Our answer to it now is, definitely tabulation will be made. no.” the uncertain- presumably because of 'be- plant, into entered agreement was procured ty whether men could companies, embrac- tween the union plants.. operate the bargain- sufficient numbers to ing the usual terms of 1946, they sent Consequently, April termi- providing for its ing agreement and *3 communica- By agreement to their former 30, 1945. nation on October the find- subject matter of union, tion is the this which and between the practice by the Board. ing of was, September, date in termination days to Decem- period for a of 60 extended disputed substantial There is no to the prior month ber 1945. About a of wheth- and the decision of fact involved agreement, the expiration the extension sending of respondents the conduct of er company of its served notice on union April 15th amount- of communication and agreement, a new negotiate desire to upon practice turns an unfair labor ed to proposal would be submitted. stated that a The upon it. placed construction to be receipt companies upon meet agreed to respondents were en- Board concedes accordingly a of the and proposal union’s in undertak- legal rights their tirely within 12th. The December liberty was held on meeting reopen plant and were ing their to accept proposal of the company did not wished to work employ anybody who to union, a counter agreed but to submit willing to they were wages them for the an involved. After posal certain issues on and conditions pay, upon the terms and subsequent meeting exchange letters a These willing to offer. they 18th, agree- December no was held on had been terms and conditions negotiations April ment was reached. Further agent on bargaining submitted to 3, 1946, January inquiry between addressing were had on 1946; 9th, and respondents failure to and on to and them asking union former to held a meet- the union reach an return to agreement, to whether desired 6th, vote working at which a strike January ing wages, on hours and work under the than a appears that less on It proposed was conducted. conditions strike. were, voted to 9th, ob- respondents course, of the April However, the union January about what on or liged to disclose Secretary Labor of its inten- working notified the conditions were. those terms Concilia- The United States letter. The tion to strike. in their detail This did in intervened, the in- and at aft- then tion “that the Service concluded board meetings impasse further thé conciliator an bargained stance of to having er matters, time between time to were held from and other the C.I.O. as re- respondents all without Act 8, Paragraph 1 of the and the Section violated sult, poll striker and on March each by attempting to struck, individually ceased. con- production all would return he persisted endeavor to hours its under the service ciliation respondents, and re- par- between conditions agreement about an bring repre- his exclusive jected by meetings were and various other ties They by such conduct held that sentative.” meeting last began. The the strike by-pass C.I.O. sought “respondents 9th, time at which held on exclusive as the proposal additional made an companies ent with each striker and to deal strikers rejected, and agent basis.” individual on an to the em- proposition submit fused approval. The unfair conduct had rejection previous respondents and charged against from the be- closed remained ever having plant ready per discloses record the entire March the re- the strike ginning employers by the cooperation sistent apparently determined companies spondent bring about earnest effort in an provid- the union plant open effort to an make think the conduct We agreement. sufficient secure they could sending the letter of employers in They the business. operate numbers against back- measured must be 15th opening of the for the date fix a did number Respondents ground complete urged have recognition should why order Nation other reasons the Board’s under the they urge Among them al N.L.R.B. v. not be enforced. Labor Relations Act. See scope beyond Co., Cir., Algoma Plywood 121 that the & Board’s order Veneer findWe the let of the that were tried. interpretation F.2d 602. A fair issues ter, upon the oth- think, object unnecessary we real to discuss or rule discloses that the that we any, employ reason many, assigned was to er for the if reasons ascertain how erroneous placed desired terms believe the board has ees to return to work on the is in interpretation upon one that had been other or differ act offered. No recent case employees controversy ent here. In the terms were mentioned to the Cromp- National Labor Relations Board letter whatso discloses no effort *4 Inc., Cir., 1948, ton-Highland Mills, part companies ever on the of the to bar- “ * * * said, the employees Court gain individually. F.2d the the by only practice the compulsion found was in the letter and indicated wage employees granting the Board the of a increase were told that those who was employees consulting elected to remain on to its the strike be ac without would corded ion. their full both the under State and Federal good Labor laws. The inten however, undisputed in appears, “It be to in respect respondent
tions of the com Douty, representa- the evidence of Mr. the panies by following is further disclosed the State, tive the in when Union the that 25, 1946, conduct:—On March in a com the granted, increase was employees, respondent down, munication Union broken the “In had withdrawn in September, an election from further said, held in matter, connection with and a strike a the employees of the of these already vote had The been called. evidence companies voted for Local 381-IWA-CIO dispute seems to be without that the as their bargaining agent. companies The wages in was by raise made the are, therefore, obligated bargain to with the by to competition meet other mills in that union unless and until majority a of the em circumstances, Under section. these it does desire some other ar appear practice not be an unfair labor to to rangement.” Again, May 17, as late as grant a general increase in the to 1946, (a month after sending the of the so- employees consulting without the Union.” objectionable response called in letter) goes respond- much This case farther than representation claim the American April ents’ letter of in 15th. While our Labor, Federation competing union, negotiations case had ceased between the respondents companies stated “These have employers union, yet employers the past years the few with we think undertaking negotiate were not 381-IWA-CIO, organization local certi directly only with the men, under- fied by the National Relations Board taking to the ascertain whether men wished * * * companies obligated the are work, to return to not on different or recognize bargain continue to with this terms, more attractive but on identical the * * certified union *. In view this terms that had been tendered theretofore informed that com- are situation, by companies. oral argument On it was panies recognize will continue to the C.I.O. by respondents’ conceded the Board that * * Respondents had never been purpose proper, was but the method em- charged bargain collectively with failure to ployed purpose, execution of the to- recognized with the and certified bargain- wit, 15th, letter of involved them agent during the en- practice. m an unfair labor With this con- dealings agree. petition clusion we cannot The tire course the or- enforcement is denied. think, ganization of the union. We circumstances, and with this back- KERNER, Judge Circuit (dissenting). the conclusions drawn ground, Board from communication of 8(a) (1) provides Section the Act that justified. 15th are “It unfair labor practice shall for an * * * witli, per Corp., employer to interfere 316 U.S. 62 S.Ct. strain, is, exer- 86 L.Ed. 1305. or coerce Certain calcu- respondents in section 7 letter of rights guaranteed cise of * * provides by-pass position lated 7 of the Act undermine Section duly recognized bar- right have the taken the chosen and shall representative representatives of gain through collectively wheth- thus at a question negotiating with their choosing. own union time when respondents’ hours and conduct toward er working conditions was pending, still amounted interference ignored employees’ ex- the exercise ents’ of. bargaining representative. clusive In this rights guaranteed in of the Act. 7§ I of the think the Board state record guar- Labor Relations Act had vi- justified finding bargain antees to all Consequently, I 8(1) olated of the Act. § collectively represent- through their chosen Board. would the order enforce atives, duty em- and makes it the only ployer collectively with the bargain duly recognized
chosen employees. obligation, it has This *5 said, and exacts and exclusive,
quires duty negative treat with no employer
other. direct- Bargaining minority
ly his majority, revoked their have not who etCO. al. v. DELTA STEVEDORI NG agent, would designation bargaining of a et al. HENDERSON be subversive the collective 12320. No. And under the the statute ordained. Appeals, Circuit. Fifth Circuit Court law Supreme Court the decisions of the 30, 1948. June that it is a violation the essential settled principle of employer Act
infringement of the for an representatives disregard individual negotiating authority.
prior a revocation Corp National La Supply v.
Medo Photo Board, 678, 321 64 S. U.S.
bor Relations 1007; May Department 830, 88 L.Ed. Ct. Labor Relations Co. v. National Stores 203, 376, L.Ed. 66 S.Ct. 90 326 U.S.
Board, Labor Relations National 145. See Co., Cir., 130 Bros. Box
Board v. Martin 202,
F.2d 204. what inference should be a function that evidence is from
drawn Labor Re- Board. National
belongs Co., 311 Link-Belt U.S. Board v. lations 368; 358, L.Ed. Na- 61 S.Ct. Southern Relations Board v. Labor
tional Telegraph Co., & U. Telephone Bell L.Ed. 1250. 63 S.Ct. S. drawing either of possibility And the from evi- inferences inconsistent two prevent the Board from does dence Re- of them. drawing one Cop- Nevada Consolidated Board
lations