*2 WISDOM, Before RIVES and Circuit Judges, CHRISTENBERRY, Dis- Judge. trict RIVES, Judge. Circuit petition This seeks of a enforcement cease and desist order of the based upon findings respondent violated 8(a) (1) promul- of the Act1 gating rules which forbade its em- ployees engaging in union solicita- plant during nonworking tion in the time, (2) required its bargaining through conduct collective management-employee spon- by respondent. sored findings entirely The upon rest a nine- page, mimeographed document which the respondent issued and its distributed to April 10, 1959,2 on or about entitled: “Employment Policies and Rules for Employees Manufacturing of Walton Company, Loganville, Ga.” That document starts with a declara- policy: tion of pages “These contain some of the principal policies and rules which have been pur- established for the pose maintaining good employee relations, promoting wel- fare of the and the Com- pany, encouraging orderly operations. efficient From time to time the will review these Atty., N.L.R.B., Specter, Mar- Russell policies and rules and will make such Counsel, Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. cel changes, additions, and deletions as Manoli, N.L.R.B., L. Dominick Associ- appear necessary changing to meet Counsel, Rothman, Stuart ate Gen. Gen. conditions.” Pollack, Attys., Counsel, N.L.R.B., Melvin Washington, C., petitioner. document is then divided D. into parts, five main the contents of (a) (1). 158 § 1. 29 U.S.C.A. Cir., 16, m/s, January 286 F.2d decided year 2. That was more after Mfg. and N. L. R. B. v. Walton R. conduct considered in N. L. B. Co., Cir., v. Wal- 26, m/s, 286 F.2d decided Jan- Mfg. Loganville Co., Oo. and ton Pants uary 6, 1961. principal :ment larly “Part “Part “Part “Part II—Joint “Part V— fairly “Section “Section “Section C— “Section D— “Section F— “Section K— “Section I— “Section “Section H— “Section G— “Section “Section “Section “Section “Section C— “Section tions. ters. ty, al Provisions. ments. pitalization. gitimate Reasons. tions Tardiness.” alleged Employee ings. III—Grievance I— IV—General Sanitation subcaptions: indicated Illness, Injury following parts Hours, Regulations. Concerning A—Hours B—Overtime E—Vacations. L—Leaves of A—What M—Insurance and B—Merit D—Rules violations involve Should Payroll Practices. Holidays. Reporting Thing Temporary Seniority. Upgrading. Layoffs Committee on Wages, and Working Condi- Advisory Ratings. Procedure. and Other Know. Absences Every Avoid. and of the docu- Work. Work. captions Pay. Absence Assign- Regula- Gener- Rehir- particu- Safe- Good Mat- Hos- Le- ments *3 low: partments this committee shall consist of representative sections months term and will then planning ultimately each ceeded representative bers. quence. serve from time to time. mum attendance working “Part V— however, tee department, shall the committee, will be straight “Section “3. “2. “5. “4. “(3) “(2) “1. “6. Office “(4) Employee “(5) [******] meetings regular will cooperate department Pressing department Assembly Pocket, fronts, Cutting Sleeve and compensated The The be held outside of time A—What Thus, hours whenever for time Regulations. the next member have an (or the committee members monthly meetings in order of and in program representative hourly rate. from each on the committee and sections) each section shall serve lining Every shipping committee mem- obtaining spent at their meetings opportunity membership of the commit- committeemen and and seniority sections listed be- Good Em- attending finishing possible, agendas of their be suc- regular regular depart- a two maxi- will one de- se- agement-Employee Committee for mittee monthly. ters tation improve safety, “Part employees es, “(1) ty, ters. II—Joint Sanitation shall sanitation There safety cleanliness will meet at be to work Company. operations, welfare of the Advisory of advisory a Joint Man- of this com- together least on Safe- premis- sani- Mat- mat- once memberships, ness— ing cludes ment head culars “(3) [******] [*****] circulating company property without obtain- any ployee permission from conducting outside business Carrying solicitations Should handbills. items, selling lottery prohibited. advertisements, on Outside Know. and the your money This in- chances posting depart- Busi- cir- including company property pany’s nish [******] “Section “Group “Conducting cause for permission, discharge: C— following (g). Thing immediate outside without including Commission of acts business Avoid. discipline, shall fur- solicita- Com- rules tation rule violative of the Act.5 In this interferes with their applicable distinction must be observed between discipline, applicable non-working applicable nonemployees. among and are not themselves, unless time to discuss self- A no solici- connection, necessarily unlawfully and those dur- memberships, money employer proves special tions circumstanc- lottery *4 necessary es that sale of chances or make such a restriction circulating item, posting production or discipline.6 maintain circulars, advertisements, No contention is made in this case special handbills.” existence of circum- stances. charge practice was The unfair labor only respondent Respondent’s charge the
filed two weeks after contention on this document the is prohibits issued and distributed that had the document solicita- employees; time of membership to its and at the tions of when that is hearing part Examiner the Trial business,” before the of the conduct of “outside management-employee had activity by employees and that union properly been established. cannot be considered as “outside According respondent’s business.” brief, respondent, concluded that The Board only legal justification “the (1) Section violation of transacting company union business on unlawfully Act,3 had interfered property (absent peculiar some circum- rights employees organizational of its present here) stance not is it that is Act,4 by guaranteed by 7 of the business of the is the ex- —it promulgating prohibiting em- a rule rights. ercise of their Well if it is soliciting ployees union member- from business are the ones who can- distributing ship union circulars engage not be denied the during plant their non- handbills company premises, on then it working time; (2) imposing a re- ‘outside’ business within the clear terms bargain quirement col- of the rule under consideration.” through management-employ- lectively respondent. by sponsored ee committee respondent infringed Whether upon its employees’ engage requires respondent freedom to in union The Board’s engaging activity guaranteed by the or from concerted and desist to cease Sec- found, practices from in unfair labor depends upon tion 7 of the Act the rea- related manner interfer- like or sonably foreseeable effects of its conduct organizational employees’ its with upon employees. its An noti- rights; distribute to each employer. “conducting fied his rescinding rules found written notice company property outside business on Board; post ap- and to unlawful * * * * ** includes solicitations of propriate notices. memberships,” doing and that so “shall discipline, furnish cause for immediate prohibiting rules or including might discharge,” company well ganizational be de- solicitation terred, reasonably production, order, or else property serve assume that he Republic 1, supra. Corporation 6. Aviation note v. N. 3. See L. B., 793, 982, R. 324 U.S. 65 S.Ct. 89 L. § 4. 29 U.S.C.A. 157. 1372; Ed. N. L. B. v. R. Babcock & Wil Steelworkers, CIO, Co., 105, L. B. v. N. R. United cox 351 U.S. 5. 76 S.Ct. 1268, 2 L.Ed.2d L.Ed. 357 U.S. 975. department etc.” serve from shall infer- each peril. least At his acted at charge practice That unfair labor Board.7 open ence was as the document filed almost as soon reasonably be Board could manage- distributed, was ment-employee and that under employees would lieve that was not actu- directed proscription stand ally established, do not detract member against union solicitation coercive effect of the document itself. time, working ships. limited to It is Respondent’s plausible is more defense special cir showing made and no expressed purpose that the the com- might justify the cumstances safety mittee was to deal matters of that state prohibition. breadth of the employment. and not with conditions of agree Board record, we that, Part II states “the of this face. its unlawful on it is together committee shall be to work document, improve safety operations, II of As to sanitation n “Joint Safety, premises, Sanitation cleanliness of the found Matters,” Advisory welfare of the argues of such Company.” Respondent respondent’s announcement also management-employee concluding expression, *5 the broad “and by Act, general the of employees the welfare of violated Section unlawfully the organ interfering the Company,” with and the to should limited be guaran employees rights preceding specificmatters, “safety of its the of izational 7 operations, Act. Section by the 7 of of sanitation and cleanliness teed right to employees premises.” “the guarantees to the ployees Whether or not the em- bargain col self-organization” naturally give phrase “to and would the through their representatives lawyerlike might of lectively construction be choosing.” by better determined the Board with its own experience expertise by this was view The Board’s Court.8 by reasonably the understood be them, It require condition noted that as a the identical employees to phrase, general any “the collective welfare of the em- employment, to conduct through ployees might company,” employed the bargaining desire was spon- policy committee, also in the ginning management-employee declaration the at be- by lawyers em- document. Even sored, and assisted formed naturally properly R. should N. L. See construe ployer violation. clear —a 203, Co., U.S. 79 the document as a whole. 360 The Board’s Cabot Carbon B. v. reasoning certainly rational, we find to be 1015, 1175. 3 L.Ed.2d if not indeed conclusive: never committee respondent’s true that It is (2), find, being, an- “As to contention we but into came expres- did, Trial than an Examiner more that because was nouncement together the committee was ‘to work committee. create the to of desire sion among unequivocal improve,’ things, positive state- to It was a joint employees Man- that, ‘the will be welfare of the “There ment etc.,” Company,’ ap- agement-Employee and so far representative pears that, employment conditions of requirement “the were privilege respondent might working un- outsiders look on 7. That earnings you was as “outside business” here. activities What make ion here are plainly yours. part goes organizers.” its letter sent earlier indicated No to quoted employees, N. L. R. B. v. Seven-Up Co., Cir., 1953, al., Mfg. N. L. B. v. 286 F.2d 8. See R. 5 Walton Co. et 344, 348, 287, 16, U.S. 73 S.Ct. 344 97 L.Ed. 20: 377; B., happy Franks Bros. Co. v. L. R. has to N. “We 702, 817, pay 321 U.S. fees to out- 64 S.Ct. 88 L. dues or initiation 1020; plants. Ed. N. L. R. B. Nou v. Standard these Oil union to work at side Co., Cir., 1943, payments 138 F.2d make not be forced to policy Board assumes the a universal interest has of common matters applicability policy possess. management em- does not between part Re- ployees, because my mind, To an inflexible attitude April notice to spondent’s hostility de- toward committees commit- employees feats the Act. an iron It erects curtain ‘Mag- middle of a appears in the tee employees, pene- between covering employment Charta’ na agent only by bargaining trable col- usually in a out everything set union, one, pre- a certified if there is agreement, lective venting development decent, of a hon- deal intended was est, relationship constructive employment and conditions management and en- labor.1 Act employees, de- by the so understood courages bargaining, collective any explicit spite the absence should, pol- with national accordance wages, or other hours reference icy. encourage The Act com- does not employment.” conditions pulsory membership organiza- in a labor Board’s policy tion. The petition to enforce effect of the Board’s granted. here is to la- is force to form a regardless organization, bor of the wish- particular es of the Judge (dissenting WISDOM, Circuit plant, if there is so much as an intention part). allow ex- Sometimes, pushing confer with matter ques- wrong. touch, slight- can No one that can be said to however becomes treme policy ly, “general intended rightness aof tion welfare”. There *6 nothing integrity bar- Carbon, of collective preserve in Cabot inor the Labor- to gaining by Management representatives free Act, labor or in law other Every- management. wrong from employer that makes interference for an “to carrying together” agree this out in that work with one for the nothing wrong— should courts welfare of all. and the policy Board There is employer-employee provided committees regard through the committee care- suspicion them and scrutinize work is employer’s prevent organization fully an in not fact in order a labor within company-dominat- meaning using as a 2(5), a committee of Sections 29 U.S. organization 152(5) or as a device 8(a) (2) labor C.A. ed §§ and is frustrating rights guaranteed un- labor infringe used on la- policy self-government Act. But this 7 of the bor’s der Section and other thing good rights when much of a too in violation of 8(a) becomes (1). place pushed far as to leave no so it is I observations, make these I because socially fide, desirable em- for a bona regard policy against the Board’s all joint employer-em- ployee or committee (in practice, committees if not something ployee less committee theory) dangerous in as a departure something organization and labor than a the law and one that have un- Study Group. Books a Great more than fortunate, far-reaching social and eco- bull-dog grip, Board, has with a The nomic I great effects. make them with unyielding hostility policy of on a seized deference, great and I do mean defer- employee committees. This method all ence, respect because motives, ex- attacking problem shows a certain pertise, accomplishments grim in some situa- determination presenting Board in a field of law virtue, enor- virtue. It is not a is a tions me, policing agency. when mous difficulties to a case demonstrates to this Steinberg, Employee- (1961); Petro, Tul.L.Rev. 365 Feldman and See Labor Re Law, Management lations Committees and the Labor 35 N.Y.U.L.Rev. (1960). Management Act of Relation charged, unable against I have been announcement”. complaint Walton expressing to find on Safe- one Rules word first, “Joint Committee that the Matters,” implying Advisory was to that the committee ty, Sanitation booklet,2 be “the method” or that it II of the provided for in Rules”, “is” method of available collective “Employment Policies nothing employees. “formed, to the assisted There is a labor prevent employees or- Company” for the Rules dominated ganizing independent la- an union one it as Amalgamated affiliated ing organization. Counsel with the Cloth- The General bor AFL-CIO, America, Workers of requested issue Board to charging setting party, up “disestablishing” some machinery organization. time At the of their own for collective unlawful bargaining. hearing, been had members of the The Com- appointed Committee. to the What is the basis for this extensive functioned, never met, never mittee never finding? hearing A with witnesses in an Notwithstanding, came into existence. effort to determine how the Committee argued the an- Counsel the General inwas “intended” fact to function? Or designat- method of nouncement regard how the did in fact by publication members, ing employee Committee? Not at all. offered Walton sup- Rules, was sufficient prove “object that the and intention in- finding did port the Committee company, if this committee is set Board’s as the Powerful exist. deed up, is to deal committees, against employee policy is any way concerning wages, grievances, ordering way of find no could the Board working fringe conditions, benefits, or an unestablished the disestablishment any of the other matters which come Examiner The Trial committee. meaning within the of the National La- compelled violation find no were Act, bor Relations as amended.” The (2). of Section Trial Examiner refused to allow way to skin than one is more There proof purpose meaning as to the find- made the Trial Examiner cat. ground testimony the rule on the the commit- “satisfied” he was *7 improper. to “future conduct” would be itself concern intended” tee “was “wages, Such evidence seems to me employ- to be rele- hours, or conditions necessary proper vant and to a decision that announcement He held ment”. resting in a case on an assumed imposed employees, as a intention on Rules the extrapolated having employment, require- two words “a condition meaning bargaining they must extensible when collective are taken ment organi- Company labor out of context. The of a the basis Rules are proceed on sponsored, testimony on their formed as- unclear face. to be zation company”; clarify was admissible meaning. this in- therefore to the the sisted interpreting employees’ Even in fringed upon freedom to a com- the contract, tight activity mercial engage the or concerted rules union evi- testimony Act, allow dence guaranteed and to show 7 of the the parties place ambigu- the struction on an thereby them in violation of Sec- coerced agreed, Here, (1). ous term of a contract. The Board Ex- stat- the tion fact, and the Board aminer found ing, an- if it were “the “notice as represented Rules was tantamount to indi- of the Rules] [of nouncement employment”. part Respond- contract of vidual on the intention If the fixed problem be narrowed down up to the committee which “fore- set ent to of the (espe- effect” method of seeable cially collective would be authority gen- employees, its to deal with bargaining available to the “the employees”), of the welfare this was the vice of eral below found evidence and majority opinion.
2. See
¿84 was as to what and would seem to be relevant have a commoninterest Carbon, improvement. subjects as in most In Cabot effect. These do- subject, remotely Court of the cases resemble such controversial title, subjects pierced be- 2(5) looked the committee as those listed in Section language by-laws, yond wages,, —“grievances, disputes, labor the com- pay, made an effort find out how rates employment hours of what conditions of mittee in functioned and work”. fact These are the nat- process ural purpose. of ferret- its real ing This bones of contention em- ployer with”,, out Board or a court con- what the to be “dealt purpose or inner nature sense, siders is the in the Cabot Carbon fought for should be as fair a committee over at the A table. employer man does not lawyer need as for labor. to be a un- prove derstand have much chance to top- should difference between the a committee is not a labor ics listed in II Part of the Rules and the prove complainant topics that it is 2(5). as a has to listed in Section organization. short, besides Company If II Rules, The- reaching an erroneous conclusion Safety, Sanitation, Joint Committee on deprived its Trial Examiner Walton of Advisory Matters, only rule, were the day in court. argument of the Board would be- support meaningful. What evidence there to somewhat more But Part up Examiner and Board? None—in page against eighteen takes one testimony. printed pages The elaborate con- form of which cover in detail hours- work, overtime, payroll Board of clusions of the Examiner practices, hol- idays, vacations, pyramid seniority, upgrading- are like an immense inverted job precariously apex. layoffs Nat- classifications, rehirings, balanced urally, its pyramid The whole it teeters. illness, leaves of absence for insurance- single phrase, general grievance hospitalization, “the rests on the procedure, grounds welfare”, discharge, thrown in at the end of a sen- disciplinary ac- reading: tence, tion, “The of this absences and tardiness. It is in- together to committee shall be to work improve conceivable to me that these matters-- safety operations, sanitation would have been set forth in such detail premises, without and cleanliness of the reference Committee, to the welfare or that Part II would have contained no- Company.” if, reference fact, to these matters — the intention had been that the Commit- Rules If constituted the tee would function aas collective bar- ordinary of an contract—the terms gaining agent. In Cabot Carbon the- held that do constitute con- *8 grievances Court important considered so employment of an contract—one ditions said, that it the existence of committees: say clause, have to fol- would lowing U.S. [360 “at in- 1022] least “safety specific references to part, for the ‘of sanitation, operations, and of cleanliness ’’ * * * concerning grievances employers premises”, should be construed as brings squarely alone these committees referring spe- to matters similar to those statutory within the definition of ‘labor cifically further, say, stated. One would organizations’ procedure- ”. detailed The things safety, these as to sanita- — governing grievances they set tion, forth in Part and relate to the cleanliness— general welfare, employer and that III of Walton’s Policies and Rules is ra- tions, complaints grievances Part HI as occur, Grievance Procedure without fear of retaliation or oth- provide return, intends The to discrimination. and er the Com- opportunity pany expects an maintain for each indi- will employee present ques- any promptly present complaints griev- to vidual his agent. (ambig- premise “com- any find the minor notion consistent unhealthy non all) uous middle and an grievances” within plaints fall sequitur. especially unwarrant- It seems jurisdiction of Committee. case, plant applied, ed if to as in this welfare”, “general construed The term majority of where because lack con- sentence of if the remainder representation for medium there is eighteen pages taining it and the other employer and communication may course, exist, did of rules not employee matters as to such —even wages hours interpreted to refer safety, sanitation, cleanliness. touching anything welfare else although go far, Act there does not so employees. however Such a construction agree- may bargaining be a collective Thus, meaningless. makes all of Part Thus, 9(a), 29 ment. U.S.C.A. least, contend, at the Board does not “group of § allows a aof proceeding, formation in this * * * grievances present sanitation, joint safety, committee on employer” any conflict matter imposes cleanliness pres- agreement, with the without aas requirement to use the bargaining representative, if ence of a bargain- organization in collective pres- opportunity he is afforded an to be ing safety meas- company. Yet ent. too, general welfare ures affect the There is evidence internal and a difference between necessary for Committee was collective employee not intended as as to what is bargaining machinery. (1) safety may great The term to serve as be so “advisory” bargaining twice, subject used once chief for collective heading again agreement. “general first of Part II wel- If the term Manage- sentence, fare”, II, will be a Joint makes “There as it is in Part used safety, ment-Employee organization, have we committee a labor advisory employee A la- point sanitation matters.” reached the where advisory organi- bor a labor kind is bargaining agents nothing group; ad- are not zation —since a commit- there is agree- visors; bargaining a collective tee can deal does not affect with that (2) general product employees. ment is not the of advice. welfare of the employee members of the Committee (1) syllogism The Board’s is that: representative consist one from each “general employees and welfare” of the departments, of six whom serves each only company can refer matters term, a two months to be succeeded interest; mat- a common seniority. the next member ters of a common to an interest “Thus”, say, “each rules wages, hours, ultimately opportunity have employment (construed ditions If from time serve to time.” this com- usually mean matters set out in a col- bargaining agent, were a mittee bargaining agreement); lective there- strangest Bargain- be the one on record. together fore, (3) a committee to work agents are never low improve men on the welfare is a com- regardless ability. pole, mittee to serve chosen as a collective totem *9 by they may faetorily super- they arise, anees which settled his have as immediate present they employee presented visor, should will be his in an or- derly grievance complaint manner. or to the Plant Man- employee (1) Employees give present ager, should who deci- complaints grievances days. following or within three sion employee (c) desires manner: If the further con- complaint (a) grievance, or of The matter first be his should discuss- sideration go promptly employee’s super- to one of ed with the the own- immediate he should will review matter visor. who as soon as ers (b) employee possible If an a decision render within ten feels that his com- grievance plaint days. or has not been satis- 186 organization. repre- grievances Labor for such would not stand If there can be affecting And, company dare sentation. would group employees do of negotiate negotiating “general to in not welfare”, or feel safe affect the I should employees. with representatives of like to know L. R. 1955, what In N. are. B. v. Machines, Cir., Associated pertinent sections Act has three 433, 437, F.2d construed 2(5), Court question to the before us—Sections “grievances” referring “major dis- to 8(a) 9(a). (2), and putes”, to in- “collective rather organiza- 2(5) Section defines a labor dividual group or complaints”, cor- “to organization any kind, or “any tion as of recting] past existing of or status agency employee representation com- or relationship”. case the employees par- plan, mittee or in which Court held that an ticipate purpose, and which exists for although organization, not a labor part, em- whole of or in efficiency, plant committee dealt with
ployers concerning grievances, dis- labor equipment, everything new wages. but putes, wages, pay, hours of em- rates of ployment, These of work.” 8(a) or conditions read 2(5), (2), these sections They specifies. of 9(a) viscera contemplating are the employer-em employee. ployee employer relationship of cooperation, long not as it does 2(5) Section clause contains no omnibus take the form of a labor enough general language improperly broad dominated and no influenced “general equivalent employer. welfare”. to be purposes One of the of with such If a does deal dog-eat-dog not Act was to soften the 2(5), it management matters as those listed in attitude Section and labor in organization. is not a Discussing labor some industries. this statu tory objective Chicago Mfg. employer Rawhide 8(a) an forbids B., Co. Cir., 1955, v. N. L. R. 221 F.2d for- “to dominate or interfere 165, 167, the Court said: labor mation or administration organization financial contribute designed “These two Sections are *** it; support provided, prevent employer having to any employer prohibited from an (except shall not be influence free permitting speech) with him confer employ- over unions or the during working hours without loss ees’ choice ‘Support’ pro- thereof. expressly pay.” al- because, time or The section scribed ter, practical as a mat- employer an separated between lows conferences it cannot be from in- unlikely employees. most It seems fluence. A drawn, line must be how- Congress permit ever, support to me that coopera- between employees— employer Support, though ferences tion. even inno- safety, through cent, a committee on but not can be identified because it sanitation, degree cleanliness constitutes at least some welfare. control or only Cooperation influence. assists the or their 9(a). to Section This come now We bargaining representative carry- “any gives individual section independent out their * * * intention. group [if or a cooperation * If this line support * * between organization] pre- recognized, the em- employer.” grievances As to their sent ployer’s fear of accusations of domi- teaches, Section does Carbon Cabot nation principal defeat the pur- form authorize pose Act, cooperation which is committee for maintain and labor.” “dealing with” the purpose concerning griev- employees, The Seventh on behalf Circuit “coopera- held *10 nothing ances; and, employer in the amendment tion” between the giving employee engage employer an in deal- possibility rise to authorizes of control employer enough ing with an dominated labor was not to amount to unlawful ap- rejected 8(d) employer is the That domination. Section of dealing Hartley 9(a) proach with the I in bill in would take here favor of Section designed expla- to con- of the a Taft bill in non-existent committee the Senate. safety, formed, itself, nation cern when conferees stated: sanitation, wel- cleanliness, and 8(d) (3) “Section of the amended fare. Labor provided Act in House Bill nothing in the was con- act to be there hold not Cabot Carbon does prohibiting employer strued as The Su- employee be committees. can preme maintaining forming a com- 203, 79 U.S. [360 Court held that discussing employees mittee of 1021], purposes “the declared interest, with it matters mutual of Committees actual functions of these employees if the a bar- did not have purpose, for the shows existed gaining representative. provi- This employ- least, part in at ‘of sion is omitted from the conference disputes, concerning grievances, labor ers agreement since the act its terms employ- wages, of pay, of hours rates ” permits individual ment, The Com- of conditions work.’ groups of to meet to,’ ‘responsibility “undertook the mittees 9(a) and section of the con- grievances re- did, [with ‘[h]andle agreement permits employ- ference employees] at spondents on behalf of grievances.” ers to answer their brought plants’ ”. This alone nonunion Supreme statutory foreclosed, defi- Court has within the the Committees courts, any argument organizations”. The lower of “labor Section nition therefore, 9(a) committees, was intended do the work of Cabot Carbon Sec- meaning 8(d) (3). wiped 9(a), tion “labor It of or- has not out came within the enlightening nor the ganization”, explana- conferees’ is used as the term Sec- 9(a). tion of (2). not 2(5) These tion facts here. case, perhaps In this because of the in- uncertainty herent in the Act as to the report the bill that The Conference line, any, if committees Labor-Manage- ultimately became the organizations, labor the Board has in- of however ment Act gone good deal further than it has ever rejecting employee terpreted commit- gone finding before in an unfair labor type, Carbon seems the Cabot tees of practice employer’sproposed anin forma- congressional approval some of indicate tion of an committee as labor group cooper- employer-employee form of organization. say every do that in Hartley bill, H.R. ation. case the Board must wait until the ob- stating section, 8(d) 3, expressly tained jectionable organized committee is guilty an un- of that an has acted. In a clear-cut case the practice if he forms or main- fair labor nip should be able mischief in the bud employees and dis- tains a budding. say or before IBut of mutual in- with it “matters cusses case, pos- circumstances sibility this the mere wag- including grievances, terest [even] construing “general welfare” employment, es, and other work- hours (out context) encompassing Section conditions”, if there is no certified 2(5) matters, possibility and the mere representative under Section union functioning the committee some time Hartley, co-sponsor with Senator Mr. Taft, the future as a labor are not Labor-Management Act finding support sufficient to of an unfair excep- explained the section as an legal practice. A basis for 8(a) (2), permitting em- tion lacking. order is therefore labor-management “setup ployers just . . . me [for the] It seems to that with committees discuss- a touch interest”, good sides, litigation matters of mutual on both of] ion designated have have been avoided when could amendment agent. curing ambiguity the Rules Conference of *11 objectionable. itself is II. The order of Part an amendment It amounts to stating what, effect,
position- the committee —that are engage in collective free to choosing. through any their own union of inoffensive nature shadow- been I have mean that does not ques- important
boxing. raises The case by Cabot were not settled tions that employee committees Carbon: Are all la- joint employer-employee committees organizations? not, If what
bor determining when such criteria organization? The a labor committee is affecting our questions these answers to fall more policy seem to
national labor Congress province naturally within If province courts. within the say so, helping Con- hand from gress easier for make life
Board, and labor. BANK, MARINE
MERCHANTS & Appellant,
v. etc., WELLES, Fishing T. E. Vessel
THE Appellee.
No. 18413. Appeals Court States
United Circuit. Fifth
April