The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1943-05-20
Rules Foreman
Union Not Under
Laws Protection
Bourd Will Not Force En-
ploYer To Bargain With
Supervisory Employees


visory employees us appropriate for
collective bargaining.
That decision will be variously inter
preted by employers. 1t is important
enough so that we will quote passages
of the decision But behind the legal
language lie implications which need
simpliication. What workers need to
know it this:
1.-The NLRB will not certify a
union of foremen or other supervisory
employees as an appropriate collective
bargaining unit.
2-While the board will not protect
such Il unit from unfair labor prac-
tices on the part of the employer, the
individual supervisor may 90 to the
board for such protection.
3-There is nothing in the decision
(or in the law to stop supervisory
employees from forming union and
bargaining collectively with the en-
ployer but such Il union must stand on
its own feet, without government pro-
lection, just as unions had to stand
on their own feet before the Wagner
Act was passed. NLRB will not force
an employer to bargain.
4-Craft unions which include fore
men in their memberships are not nee
eSSarily forced to relinquiSh such MEM
bers. 1t depends upon whether they
can convince the employers in each
case But the NLRB will not protect
a union in any jurisdiction it may
claim over foremen and it will not in
clude foremen as members of the union
in Il certitication process.
No Mans Land Set Up
In other words, the National Labor
Relations Board has established Il mo
Mans Land for the relations between
foremen and employers ION the ground
that such unit would result in dis
rupting managerial and production
techniqueS and nigh have Il coerciSe
effect upon the rank and file of en-
ployeeS.
Take the case of the United Mine
Workers and their demand that mine
forcmen become members of the union.
The board tells the employers, in eff
feet, that they will not be forced to
comply with the demand of John l..
Lewis But if the employers choose to
comply with the demand, the law will
not give them sympathetic or other
support.
Present Contracts Protected
The boards ruling was handed down
in the case of Maryland Drydock Co..
Baltimore Md, and CIO union which
sought to represent temporary super
viSorS. working leaders, and leaders,
either i'm the same union to which sub
ordinate employees belonged, or in
separate units. Quoting from the de
ciSiOn:
I'VE recognize that the practive of
various craft unions. notably in the
printing and maritime trades, has been
to admit foremen to membership and
to include them under collective agree
mentS. This practice arose long before
the adoption of the National Labor Re
lationS Act and operates quite indie
pendently of the sanction of its pro
visions. While it may be assumed that
foremen engaged i'm these crafts has
brought accommodation by both en-
employers and employees, the Board
has almost invariably excluded fore
men from bargaining units even in
these trades. In 50 doing, however, we
have not intended. and we do not now
intend to disrupt the rights which such
,l,t .l.,,
collective agreements.
The legislative history of the Ma
tona Labor Relations Act indicates
that the conditions which prevailed in
the mass production industries were
the primary factors which led to its
enactment. In these industries it was
traditionally recognized by all parties
that the interests of fOremen lay pre-
dominantly with the management
groups. We are of the opinion that in
the present stage of industrial admins
tration and employee self-organization,
the establishment of bargaining units
composed of supervisors exercising
substantial managerial authority will
impede the processes of collective bar
gaining, disrupt established managerial
and production techniqueS, and mill
tate against ettectuation of the policies
of the Act.
while it may be conceded that the
question is close, we are not longer
convinced that from the mere deter
mination that Il supervisor is an EN-
ployee it follows that supervisors may
constitute appropriate ba rga n n e
units. Such Il theory seems logically to
impel the conclusion that all employees
not specifically omitted from this sub
section fall also within Section 8 O..
The Board would then have to hold in
each case that the highest corporate
officials, including even presidents and
general managers, were entitled to be
included in appropriate collective bar
gaining units, since everyone associated
with Il corporation, except the stock
holders and the board of directors, is
an employee. Such a construction OF
n, Z.