Document: 337 U.S. 217 69 S.Ct. 960 93 L.Ed. 1320 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDv.CROMPTON-HIGHLAND MILLS, Inc. No. 197. Argued Jan. 31, 1949. Decided May Rehearing Denied June 20, See 950, 1512. Mr. David P. Findling, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Ralph Williams, Atlanta, Ga., respondent. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In this case a collective bargaining representative was certified, under National Labor Relations Act,1 to represent all employees working certain appropriate unit. Their employer engaged in extended negotiations with as many matters, including rates pay. December 19, 1945, reached an impasse. The question here presented is whether unfair labor practice when, on January 1, 1946, it put into effect without prior consultation representative, general increase pay applicable most who had been represented negotiations. This substantially greater one than any which offered during For reasons be stated, we hold that, circumstances, action constituted and that decree should entered enforcing order prohibiting such conduct. also raises questions nature impasse proper scope terms enforcement decree. 2 August 13, Textile Workers Union America, Congress Industrial Organizations, following election statute, certified exclusive about 800 Crompton-Highland Mills, respondent herein. These included its production maintenance at Griffin, Georgia, where manufactured cotton other goods. Much material entering those goods finished there produced were bought, sold or transported interstate commerce, so practice, if any, concededly affected commerce. From least until committee union numerous subjects, Many tentative agreements reached. 3 member committee, announced substantial employees, amounting two six cents hour, effective 1945. applied most, but not Simultaneously posting t e announcement increase, told employee members it. At same time mailed nonemployee committee. 4 Board, petitioner herein, response charges made by union, filed complaint against employer, alleging several practices.2 above-described After hearings before trial examiner consideration examiner's intermediate report, employer's exceptions brief relating report entire record oral arguments, 21, issued cease desist order. 70 N.L.R.B. 206. Court Appeals Fifth Circuit denied petition enforcement. 167 F.2d 662. Because importance issue administration relations statutes, granted certiorari. 335 812, 52. 5 precise what decree, Board.3 If issued, based upon part, all, Board's supported findings fact. Those are binding us extent they sustained evidence.4 We satisfied evidence support fact Board and, therefore, see no need set forth here. primary discussion is, rather, justify 6 controlling specific follows: 'As fully discussed Intermediate Report, respondent, course Union, refused accede Union's wage demands their last conference first only counterproposal approximately 1/2 hour raise, rejected. Thereafter, r spondent further effort settle dispute but, instead, 12 days later, larger previously consulting affording opportunity negotiate respect thereto. our opinion, taken (so) soon after attempting through process reach agreement among things, wages, clearly shows acting good faith negotrations, manifestly inconsistent principle bargaining. Nor impressed respondent's attempted justification ground broke off 19 therefore relieved obligation deal Concededly, never proposed possible basis comparable 1946. Moreover, fails contention representatives assumed unequivocal position meeting foreclosed concerning wages conditions employment. Under these find, did Trial Examiner, failed perform statutory duty bargain collectively thereby interfered with, restrained, coerced exercise rights guaranteed Act.' (Emphasis supplied.) pages 206-207.5 1. employees' effect, negotiations, offered. 7 coupled adopted from leave room doubt adequacy facts o der based. significant Appendix B, infra, 230, 966. found distinguish has otherwise authorized unit.6 instant case, wish consulted established Cf. v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 292, 297, 59 501, 504, 83 660. do have come complete termination cutting outstanding invitation new matter Sands Mfg. 332, 508, 682. opening raise makes correction existing inequities substitution shorter hours, vacations sick leaves, lieu some part pay, suggests infinite opportunities inherent readiness generally employees. occasion difficult infer intent cut yet consistent purposes Act. 8 unilateral grant proposal left unaccepted even rejected Such might well carry disparagement proceedings. Instead being regarded welcomed prejudice rest Matter W. Cross 77 1162; Exposition Cotton Mills 76 1289; Southern Prison 46 1268. 9 justified, circumstances requires refusing taking action, different from, than, representative. depends finding showed 'the (employer) bargaining.' page 207. Dept. Stores Co. 326 376, 66 203, 90 L.Ed 145; Medo Photo Supply Corp. 321 678, 64 830, 88 1007; Newark Morning Ledger Cir., 120 262, 137 A.L.R. 849; Jeffery-De Witt Insulator 91 134,7 112 948. II. extend necessary prevent prohibited employer. 10 There establish lack consistency connection above discussed. declined uphold his recommendations alleged practices one. own interference restraint coercion of, expressly limited item. It reads: 'Under 11 Accordingly, appears reason enlarging beyond feature, little, orders requiring either affirmative notices it.8 reasons, judgment reversed cause remanded opinion. 13 ordered. 14 Reversed remanded. 15 DOUGLAS, MURPHY RUTLEDGE join Part I think enforced modification. 16 A. 17 Order Mat er Inc., CIO, Case 10—C1812.—Decided 18 'Order. 'Upon pursuant Section 10(c) Act, hereby officers, agents, successors, assigns, shall: 20 '1. Cease from: 21 '(a) Refusing Griffin plant, watchmen, excluding office, clerical, technical, laboratory section men spinning room, head loom fixers weave card supervisory grade second hand above, authority hire, promote, discharge, discipline, changes status effectively recommend said organization, hours employment, 22 '(b) manner interfering efforts unit described above. 23 '2. Take finds will effectuate policies Act: 24 Upon request, employment; 25 Post plant copies notice attached hereto, marked 'Appendix A.' Copies notice, furnished Regional Director Tenth Region, shall, duly signed posted immediately receipt thereof, maintained sixty (60) consecutive thereafter, conspicuous places, places customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall insure altered, defaced, covered material; 26 '(c) Notify Region (Atlanta, Georgia), writing, within ten (10) date Order, comply herewith.' 208-209. 27 'Notice All Employees. 28 'Pursuant Decision notify that: 29 'We below, 30 make employment CIO. 31 interfere us. 32 'The is: technical uthority action. 33 'Crompton-Highland 34 'By .......... 35 (Representative.) (Title.) 36 'Dated ........ 37 'This must remain 60 hereof, material.' 210-211. B. 38 Quotations 'Findings Fact' to—'III. Unfair Practices, refusal bargain' stated Report printed Order. 39 'No held when request Union. 40 issues parties still disagreement involved work assignments, insurance provisions, severance vacations, security, arbitration, activity company time, preamble contract, sought define 'employees' unit, opposed denominated party contract. On although compromise membership, form security. As originally proposals amounted one-half per time. 41 'On negotiation employed summoned office Plant Manager Pickford informed granting employees,18 hour. read letter date, addressed Douty: 42 'In contract repeatedly you mill would adjustments locality. learned mills locality adjust are, making Monday, 31st, A copy today outlining various rate hereto. 43 'Attached nitices directed respective departments listing increases. received Douty next day. While negotiating Pickford's announcing increases bulletin boards departments. 44 'It seen foregoing neither nor conference, increase. latter date. merely fait accompli, amount whom applicable,19 factors normally envisaged process. 45 cannot disputed, does deny, * 'While evident insistent demand security negotiatio § preponderance credible had, ultimatum consummated afford already indicated, aside question, If, contends, conferences October 18, convinced adamant issue, seems unlikely conferred November 8, again submitted written proposal. 47 clear, undersigned finds, temporary issues, principally check-off, concluding abandoned obviously could affect majority 'a relationship once rightly permitted exist function reasonable period can given fair chance succeed,' well-established.20 Equally clear proposition concession while designated subject matter, constitutes violation union.21 contrary argument, giving credit obtain, rather conduct derogation depriving right 48 foregoing, record, concludes failing furnish essential pertinent information structure 'point plan,' job specifications, appertaining thereto, thereafter described, paragraph 220—221, 222, 223—224. 49 relied solely decision case. express statement order: Examiner 8(1) (5) detailed nformation incentive plan Although agree Examiner's conclusion, we, however, determination ground.' Stat. 453, U.S.C. (1940 Ed.) 159, U.S.C.A. 159; 62 1346. §§ 7, (5), 452—455, 157, 158(1) 160, 158(1, 5), 160. order, A., 227, 965. facts, evidence, conclusive.' 10(e) 454, 160(e), 160(e). considered whole 10(e), amended Management 1947, 61 148, (1946 Ed., Supp. I) Congress, providing, 10(c), (e) (f), 'as conclusive', precludes courts weighing reviewing orders, free them aside, though drawn inferences.' Nevada Consolidated Copper Corp., 316 105, 106—107, 960, 961, 86 1305. also, 681, note 832, Edison New York 305 197, 229, 206, 216, 126; Virginia Maryland Coach 301 142, 146—147, 57 648, 649—650, 81 addition findings, quoted text, adopted, terms, examiner, modifications material. number significance securing full appreciation explained Herbert Pickford, manager follows testimony examiner: 'Q. explain why 1946.—A. heard end previous week throughout state adjustments, rumor, more less grape vine, local planning adjustments. checked rumor going made, didn't get dates made. steadfastly area amongst first, always been, And take place, wanted maintain market ourselves. Do know, Griffin?—A. know definite figures saw paper. Did increase?—A. No; not. independently anyone else, done.' 'Sec. 8. (a) employer— '(5) refuse provisions 9(a).' 452—453, 140—141, 158, 158. 9. Representatives selected purposes, employment: *.' 143, 159(a), 159(a). Even since may carried original justifiable. '* character lawful become moot because obeyed changing indicate made.' Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 261, 271, 58 571, 576, 82 831, 115 307. See, Federal Trade Commission Goodyear Tire Rubber 304 257, 863, 1326. breadth like injunction court, depend each purpose violations, threat future indicated similarity relation unlawful acts committed past. Act give authority, exercise, enjoin violations statute found. To restraining appear bear resemblance danger commission anticipated That lacking here.' Express Pub. 312 426, 436—437, 438—439, 693, 700, 85 930. 392—393, 212—213, J. I. 341—342, 582, 762. seen, increase.' janitors, sweepers, scrubbers, outside help, categories Union.' 'See Franks Bros. N.L.R.B., 702, 705, 817, 819, 1020.' Aluminum Ore Company 131 485, 487, 147 1286, 1295—1299; Department 145. Majority Rule Collective Bargaining, Ruth Weyand, Columbia Law Review, Vol. XLV, 579—583, footnotes 581, excellent citation on, Power Statutory Representative Bar Unilateral Changes Employer.'

Category: 6