![]() ![]() The findings of the Board show that, in the summer of 1936, a group of employees organized Lodge 66 under the auspices of a committee of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers of North America that respondent employed a "labor spy" to engage in espionage within the Union, and his employment was continued until about Decemthat, on September 10, 1936, respondent's superintendent was requested to meet with a committee of the union, and the superintendent required that the committee should consist U. ![]() No question is raised as to the intimate relation of its operations to interstate commerce, or the effect upon that commerce of the unfair labor practices with which the corporation is charged. Respondent, Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation, is engaged at North Chicago, Illinois, in the manufacture and sale of products made from rare metals. While the other portions of the Board's order are under review, the principal question presented relates to the authority of the Board to require respondent to reinstate employees who were discharged because of their unlawful conduct in seizing respondent's property in what is called a "sit-down strike." The Circuit Court of Appeals set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board requiring respondent to desist from labor practices found to be in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, and to offer reinstatement to certain discharged employees with backpay. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court. 590, to review a judgment setting aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board. In recognizing the right to strike, it contemplates a lawful strike, and where a strike, even though actuated by unfair labor practices of the employer, is initiated U. ![]() The National Labor Relations Act is not to be construed as compelling employers to retain persons in their employ regardless of their unlawful conduct. 240 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabusģ. An order of the Board requiring an employer to withdraw recognition from an organization of employees should be upheld where there is substantial evidence that the formation of this organization was brought about through promotion efforts of the employer contrary to the provision of § 8(2) of the Act. An order of the Board that the employer bargain with a particular organization as exclusive representative of employees should not be enforced where, by reason of valid discharges and new employments, there is no ground to conclude that the organization is the choice of a majority of the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. An order of the National Labor Relations Board requiring reinstatement of employees must be supported by specific findings. Assuming that, through not having been formally discharged, they retained the status of "employees" by virtue of § 2(3), that provision does not automatically reinstate them, and the provision that the Board may require "such affirmative action, including reinstatement of employees," as will "effectuate the policies" of the Act, will not countenance an order requiring reinstatement in such circumstances. Strikers who aided and abetted a "sit-down" strike are in no better case than the "sit-down" strikers themselves. The provision of § 10(c) of the Act, by which the Board may require an employer to take such affirmative action as will "effectuate the policies" of the Act, does not authorize the Board to require reemployment of men who have been discharged for such unlawful conduct. In recognizing the right to strike, it contemplates a lawful strike, and where a strike, even though actuated by unfair labor practices of the employer, is initiatedĪnd conducted in lawlessness by the seizure and retention of the employer's property, and the strikers are discharged because of their lawlessness, they do not remain "employees" within the meaning of § 2(3), and are not within the authority to reinstate "employees" reposed in the Board by § 10(c). ![]() The National Labor Relations Act does not undertake to abrogate the right of an employer to refuse to retain in his employ those who illegally take and hold possession of his property. Seizure and forcible retention of an employer's factory buildings by employees, in a "sit-down" strike, is good cause for their discharge. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |