Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/97248/h-j-heinz-co-vs-labor-board
Timestamp: 2018-09-24 15:53:22
Document Index: 106288882

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 9', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 8', '§ 10']

H J Heinz Co Vs Labor Board - Citation 97248 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
H.J. Heinz Co. Vs. Labor Board - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/97248
Case Number 311 U.S. 514
Appellant H.J. Heinz Co.
.....h.j. heinz co. v. labor board - 311 u.s. 514 (1941) u.s. supreme court h.j. heinz co. v. labor board, 311 u.s. 514 (1941) h.j. heinz co. v. national labor relations board no. 73 argued december 17, 18, 1940 decided january 6, 1941 311 u.s. 514 certiorari to the circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit syllabus 1. the question of the responsibility of an employer, under the national labor relations act, for unauthorized activities of supervisory employees is not one of legal liability on principles of agency or respondeat superior, but only whether the act condemns such activities as unfair labor practices so far as the employer may gain from them in the bargaining process any advantage of a kind which the.....
H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board - 311 U.S. 514 (1941)
U.S. Supreme Court H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board, 311 U.S. 514 (1941)
1. The question of the responsibility of an employer, under the National Labor Relations Act, for unauthorized activities of supervisory employees is not one of legal liability on principles of agency or respondeat superior, but only whether the Act condemns such activities as unfair labor practices so far as the employer may gain from them in the bargaining process any advantage of a kind which the Act proscribes. To that extent, the employer is amenable to the Board's authority to prevent repetition of such activities and to remove the consequences of them upon the employees' right of self-organization. Pp. 311 U. S. 518 , 311 U. S. 521 .
So held where the employer, when advised of activities of supervisory employees encouraging the formation of a plant union, took no step to notify the employees that such activities were unauthorized, or to correct their impression that support of a rival labor union was not favored by the employer, and would result in reprisals. P. 311 U. S. 521 .
2. Whether the continued existence of a labor union the formation of which was influenced by unfair labor practices constitutes an obstacle to the employees' light of self-organization is a question of fact to be determined by the Board from all the circumstances attending those practices. P. 311 U. S. 522 .
3. An order of the National Labor Relations Board requiring the disestablishment of a labor union, the formation of which was influenced by unfair labor practices, held supported by the evidence. P. 311 U. S. 522 .
4. Refusal of an employer, on request of a labor organization, to sign a written contract embodying the terms of an agreement which he has reached with it concerning wages, hours, and working conditions is a refusal to bargain collectively, and an unfair labor practice under § 8(5) of the Act. P. 311 U. S. 525 .
5. Under § 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board may require an employer who has reached an agreement with a labor organization concerning wages, hours, and working conditions to sign a written contract embodying the terms of the agreement. P. 311 U. S. 526 .
We do not doubt that the Board could have found these activities to be unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act if countenanced by petitioner, and we think that, to the extent that petitioner may seek or be in a position to secure any advantage from these practices, they are not any the less within the condemnation of the Act because petitioner did not authorize or direct them. In a like situation, we have recently held that the employer whose supervising employees had, without his authority, so far as appeared, so participated in the organization activities of his employees as to prejudice their rights of self-organization could not resist the Board's order appropriately designed to preclude him from gaining any advantage through recognizing or bargaining with a labor organization resulting from such activities. Machinists v. Labor Board, ante, p. 311 U. S. 72 . See Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U. S. 584 .
the answer to petitioner's contention that the Board was without authority to compel disestablishment of the Association. Disestablishment is a remedial measure under § 10(c), to be employed by the Board in its discretion to remove the obstacle to the employees' right of self-organization, resulting from the continued or renewed recognition of a union whose organization has been influenced by unfair labor practices. Whether this recognition is such an obstacle is an inference of fact to be drawn by the Board from all the circumstances attending those practices. Labor Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U. S. 261 ; Labor Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 308 U. S. 241 , 308 U. S. 250 .
its recognition of the Association and control its action. This, we think, afforded adequate basis for the Board's order. Labor Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, supra; Labor Board v. Falk Corp., 308 U. S. 453 , 308 U. S. 461 -462; Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co., supra. Nothing in the order precludes members of the Association from establishing an organization independently of participation by petitioner and its officers and agents, and from securing recognition through certification of the Board or an election as provided by § 9(c) of the Act.
In support of this contention, it points to the history of the collective bargaining process showing that its object has long been an agreement between employer and employees as to wages, hours, and working conditions evidenced by a signed contract or statement in writing, which serves both as recognition of the union with which the agreement is reached and as a permanent memorial of its terms. [ Footnote 1 ] This experience has shown that refusal to
sign a written contract has been a not infrequent means of frustrating the bargaining process through the refusal to recognize the labor organization as a party to it and the refusal to provide an authentic record of its terms which could be exhibited to employees, as evidence of the good faith of the employer. Such refusals have proved fruitful sources of dissatisfaction and disagreement. [ Footnote 2 ] Contrasted with the unilateral statement by the employer of his labor policy, the signed agreement has been regarded as the effective instrument of stabilizing labor relations and preventing, through collective bargaining, strikes and industrial strife. [ Footnote 3 ]
Before the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act, it had been the settled practice of the administrative agencies dealing with labor relations to treat the signing of a written contract embodying a wage and hour agreement as the final step in the bargaining process. [ Footnote 4 ] Congress, in enacting the National Labor Relations Act, had before it the record of this experience, H.Rept. No. 1147, 71st Cong., 1st Sess., p. 5, and see also pp. 3, 7, 15-18, 20-22, 24; S.Rept. No. 573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 2, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17. The House Committee recommended
H.Rept. 1147, supra, p. 3, and stated, page 7, that §§ 7 and 8 of the Act guaranteeing collective bargaining to employees, was a reenactment of the like provision of § 7(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, see Consolidated Edison Co. v. Labor Board, 305 U. S. 197 , 305 U. S. 236 ; Labor Board v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U. S. 332 , 306 U. S. 342 .
Petitioner's refusal to sign was a refusal to bargain collectively and an unfair labor practice defined by § 8(5). The Board's order requiring petitioner, at the request of the Union, to sign a written contract embodying agreed terms is authorized by § 10(c). This is the conclusion which has been reached by five of the six courts of appeals which have passed upon the question. [ Footnote 5 ]