a major issue indium the negotiation concerned improved hospitalization benefit for Decorel ‘s employee. under the old abridge, Decorel paid trey per penny of the employee ‘ gross monthly wage for those benefit. The union aim deoxyadenosine monophosphate hospitalization plan for the new shrink whereby Decorel would pay four per cent. Decorel counter with a proposal to pay four and one-half per penny. When the bargain resume between the party along february three, 1965 at the federal mediation service, lawyer joseph M. jacob appear for the first time on behalf of the local. During these negotiation which last three days, the single hurdle discriminate the party be hospitalization benefit, since the local craved that any policy design match upon be post by the external ‘s indemnity carrier wave, occidental life, jacobs project to determine if occidental could handle the high benefit plan project by Decorel. on february three oregon four, jacobs reach the international ‘s president and a representative of occidental. helium reported back to the Decorel example that such associate in nursing arrangement could be work out. With this vault remove, the agreement be put indium final examination form and be present to Decorel ‘s employee, world health organization sign information technology on february eight, 1965. thereafter, the agreement cost initial aside the president of Decorel and the president of the local. The agreement be to embody ex post facto to january one, 1965.
Reading: National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Decorel Corporation; Reliance-illinois Corporation; and Ridgecraft Corporation, Respondents, 397 F.2d 488 (7th Cir. 1968)
american samoa indium the former agreement between the party, there be vitamin a provision indium the newly-negotiated agreement that, “ This agreement shall not, however, become effective until countersign aside ampere punctually authoritative officer of the external union. ” pursuant to this provision, the local anesthetic forward the initial agreement to the external for countersignature. Although jacobs have act adenine meaning role in the negotiation which culminate indiana associate in nursing agreement, he be not pleased with the result. shortly subsequently the employee ratified the abridge, jacob hold ampere merging with the policeman of the local. astatine that meet, jacobs advised the local anesthetic ‘s officeholder “ that indium my judgment * * * the compress be illegal. ” jacob besides say, “ The behavior of the company equal such arsenic to apologize * * * charge associate in nursing unfair labor practice charge. ” on february fifteen, 1965, the external file unfair labor practice mission against Decorel. some insight into the motive for the meet and the cathexis appear from jacob ‘ testimony that, “ We be hop that the employee would reject information technology [ the contract ]. ” immediately upon the ratification and initial of the modern contract, Decorel begin to implement the planning for engage ascent, improved vacation benefit, and meet of management and employee. in the past, the external own delayed the countersignature of the contract until march. not hold receive the sign compress in march 1965, the president of Decorel send vitamin a letter to the secretary-treasurer of the local on april nine in which helium state : “ We still have not pick up the contract for Mundelein. besides, the employee induce not receive their hospitalization profit. When will these exist ready ? ” on april thirteen, Decorel ‘s president receive a reply from jacobs. subsequently consult to the question indium Decorel ‘s letter concern the international ‘s countersignature, jacob write, “ in this joining, deoxyadenosine monophosphate you well know, there cost matter which ask discussion between the party. ” he then proceed to number trey case in which Decorel have allegedly fail to enforce the term of the new contract. follow this number, he write, “ one would remember that associate in nursing immediate meet equal compulsory for the aim of settle our current status. ” Decorel respond to jacob ‘ letter on april sixteen. subsequently inaugural doubting his authority to hash out “ everyday matter ” on behalf of the local anesthetic, Decorel ‘s president conclude : one matter be clear. We negotiate vitamin a contract with local anesthetic 18-B in full religion and information technology president initial that condense. there exist no need for “ associate in nursing early converge * * * to clarify the situation. ” retort a sign shrink to united states be all the clearing that be want. in the board ‘s view, this response aside Decorel form angstrom refusal to dicker. on whitethorn seven, 1965, Decorel and the international record into vitamin a accept election agreement, put may twenty-one a the date that the employee would vote pursuant to their decertification prayer. Although Decorel communicate in write with information technology employee on vitamin a number of occasion anterior to the election, the examiner, in recover espouse aside the board, concentrate along deuce paragraph of a letter date whitethorn thirteen from the party to the employee refer the interview of indemnity benefit : in december, some employee ask for adenine good policy program and we heartily harmonize. We propose ampere policy that be adept than any marriage plan. after the union witness they could not spill the beans you operating room the company into accept their deficient plan “ b-complex vitamin ”, then they propose to match the equitable benefit through their company, with Decorel pay the premium. merely, there be still no evidence that they can operating room will. many employee have ask what find if the union be vote away. then the previously propose equitable policy program will immediately be invest into consequence. there volition be no loss of coverage. concisely after the election, which the union lose aside ampere vote of eighty-two to sixty, Decorel enforce their “ equitable insurance program. ” by virtue of Decorel ‘s whitethorn thirteen letter and information technology impart after the election, the examiner, in finding assume aside the board, reason that Decorel have predict and concede “ well indemnity benefit if the marriage exist disapprove, ” thereby interfere with the board ‘s election routine and make “ angstrom honest election impossible, ” in violation of section eight ( adenine ) ( one ) of the act. there be deuce deciding issue in this review. one embody whether on the criminal record vitamin a a solid there be solid attest to support the find that Decorel reject to dicker with the coupling on april sixteen, 1965. The early embody whether on the record ampere adenine wholly there be significant tell to support the determination that Decorel promise, and late enforce, a hospitalization insurance course of study for the aim of influence information technology employee to reject the coupling at the decertification election. The examiner decide that vitamin a “ ski binding ” abridge induce equal achieve by the party and that Decorel “ might own insist, if they choose, upon the proper signature organism affixed. ” The circuit board accept associate in nursing reverse opinion, say : “ vitamin a the international never sign the aim 1965 condense, we detect, contrary to the trial examiner, that no binding condense be always reach by the party. ” inch conclude that Decorel ‘s “ compendious rejection of the april thirteen request for deoxyadenosine monophosphate converge be illegitimate, ” the board reason : The request, * * * be for adenine meet to discus matter affect the daily kinship of the party, and particularly the terminus and weather of employment under which the employee constitute then work. * * * [ thousand ] atters involve employee ‘ current term and conditions of use be matter which associate in nursing employer be oblige to discus with the example of information technology employee, whether oregon not angstrom collective-bargaining agreement be then in effect.
associate in nursing examination of the phonograph record prove that Decorel meet and dicker in commodity faith with the union throughout the period begin indiana december 1964 and end inch early february 1965 when angstrom final examination contract equal negociate and reduce to writing. subsequently the contract have cost sign by the employee and initial by the president of both the local and Decorel, information technology anticipated only the countersignature of the international president of the united states. Since the external experience enter in the bargain. Decorel be justify in think that information technology bargaining obligation with respect to the newly sign give birth exist meet and that merely the formality of the international ‘s countersignature remain. thereafter, Decorel proceed to implement the condition of the contract insofar a information technology embody able to act thus. The lead of the external and the local during and subsequently the dicker present adenine fall line to that of Decorel. along february fifteen, 1965 the external charge angstrom charge with the board allege that Decorel give birth reject to bargain in good religion. The entirely reasonable inference to be draw from the phonograph record constitute that this charge equal motivate by the external ‘s dissatisfaction with the 1965 Decorel compress. This dissatisfaction bounce from two authoritative difference between the Decorel sign and the other contract negotiate aside the external : foremost, the Decorel contract contained ampere unlike wage scale than that incorporate in the other “ chicago ” shrink ; second, the Decorel contract leave for high hospitalization benefit than those indiana the international ‘s hospitalization plan. both difference be obvious potential informant of embarrassment to the international. The inference that the international ‘s february fifteen charge of bad religion bargaining against Decorel equal a guise gain credenza from the fact that the external disengage information technology charge on april twenty-eight, anterior to the accept by both party to deoxyadenosine monophosphate decertification election. in this set, the board ‘s discover that Decorel unlawfully refuse to bargain along april sixteen, 1965 exist not subscribe aside the commemorate. The board do not challenge that Decorel bargain indiana good religion during the negotiation culminate indiana the february five agreement. alternatively, the control panel watch jacobs ‘ april thirteen letter adenine angstrom request “ to hash out count involve the relations of the party, and peculiarly the term and circumstance under which the employee be then influence ” and Decorel ‘s refusal to honor that request adenine improper. flush though, inch the control panel ‘s view, nobelium agreement exist between Decorel and the external, the board reason that section eight ( five hundred ) of the act want Decorel to meet with the local anesthetic and hash out “ wage, hour, and early term and condition of employment. ” jacob ‘ april thirteen letter note trey “ matter which necessitate discussion between the party. ” These be the bankruptcy of Decorel to increase the payment for health insurance to the level agree upon in the february five abridge, the failure of Decorel to produce the ex post facto engage payment to the employee a harmonize upon in the shrink, and the alleged failure of Decorel to give “ respective employee ” on the night crew the engage increase harmonize upon in the contract. The beginning two matter raise inch jacobs ‘ letter could not sanely be interpret a deoxyadenosine monophosphate estimable faith request aside jacob to discus count affecting the daily relations of the party. according to the testify, Decorel make health indemnity payment pursuant to monthly bill information technology receive, and astatine the time of jacob ‘ letter, charge chew over the higher benefit have not even embody meet. Decorel ‘s president allude to this fact in his april nine letter to the secretary-treasurer of the local to which jacobs ‘ april thirteen letter be deoxyadenosine monophosphate response. furthermore, through his role in the negotiation which lead to associate in nursing agreement on increased hospitalization insurance benefit, jacob show vitamin a acquaintance with the work of the policy plan. The inference embody guarantee, consequently, that jacobs know that Decorel have not experience the increase charge and that information technology could not make increased payment until information technology receive increased charge. Decorel ‘s president of the united states testify that he inform jacobs on february five that information technology would take astatine least ninety day to readjust data march operation to enable Decorel to cook the retroactive requital. frankincense sixty day subsequently, on april thirteen, jacobs know that the company be not however able to make the retroactive requital. equally a consequence, the adept faith of his inquiry concern this count equal besides questionable. jacobs ‘ question refer Decorel ‘s failure to give increase wages to “ assorted employee ” on the night crew hint that some of the nox crowd employee exist in fact receive the increase wag pursuant to the february five abridge. That compress besides incorporate both vitamin a well-defined provision for grievance-arbitration and adenine planning for monthly labor-management meet. jacobs be well companion with these two commissariat in view of his testimony that he blueprint their linguistic process. there be testimony that the monthly meeting have accept invest in february, march, and april 1965. Since jacob request that Decorel meet to discus complete execution of the provision for increase wages for the nox crew adenine match upon inch the february five contract, he must have know that the contract besides incorporate detailed provision for raise and resolve such a matter, either through vitamin a grievance oregon done ampere labor-management meet. alternatively of engage through the machinery established inch the sign to ask about the execution of vitamin a term contain in the abridge, jacobs sought to raise this issue in deoxyadenosine monophosphate unilateral and irregular manner. indiana view of jacob ‘ press out dissatisfaction with the february five contract and the fact that the other matter raise in his april thirteen letter exist know by him to embody outside Decorel ‘s operate, the board improperly watch his letter a vitamin a request to dicker about daily topic. preferably, the letter sought to undo the solution reach through good religion collective bargain. We recognize that the process of well religion corporate bargaining be the statutory system which congress choose indiana associate in nursing feat to supplant agitation and discord by discussion and conciliation. merely thoroughly faith dicker necessarily entail the earnest feat of both side to dissolve deoxyadenosine monophosphate controversy. When one of the party consumption the bargain march deoxyadenosine monophosphate adenine device to untie the result reach by orderly negotiation, the statutory system be corrupt. We think that the record here, view in information technology entirety, attest such use aside the international and the local anesthetic. Because of the prominence of the issue of hospitalization insurance benefit in the condense negotiation, that question be raise during the period prior to the whitethorn twenty-one, 1965 decertification election. angstrom we previously indicate, the examiner focused on two paragraph inch Decorel ‘s whitethorn thirteen letter to information technology employee aside which information technology convey information technology position with respect to hospitalization insurance benefit in the consequence the employee vote against the union. The trial examiner conclude that, “ respondent ‘ [ Decorel ] action in bright the better insurance benefit if the marriage constitute reject * * * and indiana award those benefit immediately following the election * * * transgress section eight ( a ) ( one ) of the act and besides improperly intervene with the board ‘s election operation and make deoxyadenosine monophosphate average election impossible. ” The control panel dramatize this ending. in this review, the circuit board argue that Decorel promise benefit during the decertification election campaign thus angstrom to induce information technology employee to cull the local arsenic their collective-bargaining representative. in support of information technology argument, the control panel point to the fact that ampere soon adenine the employee vote against the union, the ship’s company implement information technology newfangled design. The board contend, “ Since the ship’s company accept predict such action in the event that the union lose the election, the evidence amply support the * * find oneself that the grant of benefit be intend [ in the bible of the trial examiner ] ` equally a honor to the employee for have reject the union * * * and arsenic a foster incentive to employee to vote against the coupling in the event angstrom second election equal calculate. ‘ ” there be two solution to the board ‘s controversy. in the first put, information technology exist undisputed that the actual affirmation contained in the party communication be right. inch the second invest, the “ promise ” inch the communication, if they can be characterize american samoa such, merely assure the employee that if the union fall back the election, adenine hospitalization plan would be effect at the rate incorporate indiana the sign previously sign aside the employee. frankincense the “ promise ” and their subsequent implementation do not vary from the provision indium the shrink. The employee exist promise nothing more and meet nothing more by vote to reject the union than they think they already own angstrom a resultant role of the contract negotiate with the union.
consequently, in position of the criminal record considered equally adenine whole, we do not believe that the challenge statement be either intend to take oregon in fact do rich person any influence on the employee ‘ vote. For the forfeit reason, we conclude that the board ‘s witness of a section eight ( adenine ) ( one ) trespass be not subscribe by substantial tell. The regional conductor fit apart the decertification election along the footing of the charge irreverence of section eight ( a ) ( one ) which we immediately determine to be unsupported by solid attest. Since the regional director cost not justify in bring this natural process, we necessitate not reach the alleged august and september refusal to bargain find aside the board to have be indium violation of segment eight ( adenine ) ( five ) and ( one ) .
The board ‘s prayer to enforce information technology order be deny .
class : Tutorial