Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Lincoln Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

- 3n the ce /

» Supreme Court of the Gnited States

‘Ocrosn — 1967

LINCOLN MANUFACTURING CO., INC,

| Petitioner,

VS.

_ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO _.

_ THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Burton Y. WEITZENFELD

120 S. La Salle Street

Chicago, Illinois, 60603

tee Counsel for Petitioner

and

Mapison P. Nemson

‘Amer, GLvoK, Wonnevns & Mirow

120 S. La Salle Street :

Chicago, Illinois, 60603.

Of Counsel

n —— = ee = .

The Scheffer Press, Inc—ANdover 38-6850 —

INDEX

: PAGE |

Opinion Below ......i...++: sSuticoics neaiadcies adaiiaiele 1

Jurisdiction _sessaneeecnsnneccssuneecesnsncccnsnuneceennnnecs Eeogucinsnnipenmedsdahteiats 2

Question Presented ....1....... tepenitncneensnnsstinee SE GBA

Statute SES Se genase tatoo nek marisa ae

Proceedings Below ....... eee iia seensibaieanitaniniins 2°

Statement of the Case ... aetna Scniunaauiniaiiamadseniaan

Reason ‘for Granting the Writ eR EOE He Ps 4

Conclusion ..:.......sccc0ee ac a oa ee oe I

Appendix A—Opinion Below pe MEA LES pote ene la. °

Appendix B—Statute® ........csssergeersrsneesnee sasaaiaes a <a 8a

| CrTaTIONS |

Cases: | | | +

_ Engineers & iain, Ine. v. "NLRB; 376 F.

- 2d 482 (Sth Cir, 1967) .....ssssecssseserseeseness Siiianainiisads 4

‘NLRB v. Cumberland Shoe Corp., 351 . ye)

(6th Cir: 1965) Licisalacestatiapinsaieabesisaesaidicapinnainiaaiaegiiiats 6

NLBB v. S. E. Nichols Shs nen i ore

65 LRRM 2655, 55 LC § 12,016 (2nd Cir. 2

hi) eaecnemaanios ssiienccsaeisinieaetiaibisidalitastipetadasiiie 4

NLRB v. Stow Mfg. Co., 217 F. 2d 900, 902 (2 °«

Cir. 1954) (L. Hand, J. , cert.. denied, 348 U.S.

964 (1955). ...c..00 _F. = At cressceseees 65 LRRM |

RE BEBO: .,.20..ccsecressceconseoeyeties evnseceoveseneenhinoonmnnesereneoneens 6

. \ Happach v. NLRB, 353 F. 2d 629 (7th Cit.

SGD) . ctiinnnnicccenrceneees sineatmsentnteniinnmeniesicitieccstmantinrstivtate oe |

Miscellaneous: ; oi |

Yale Law Journal, Vol. 75 so. inneuenaneaieian?

IN THE.

| SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Ocropzn TrRM, 1967

No.

LINCOLN MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,

| | Petitioner,

° Us. ;

NATIONAS, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, a

¥ Li | ~ Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Petitioner prays that a Writ of Certiorari issue to

review the judgment of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit entered in the above

case on July 7, 1967. The judgment sought to be reviewed _

enforced an order against Petitioner by the - National

Labor Relations Board.

‘ *

" OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the Court of. Appeals is not Officially

reported. This opinion is oe in Appendix A,

infra, Pp. la-7a.

' JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Court of Appeals was made and - :

entered on July 7, 1967. The jurisdiction of this Court

is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1206 (1).

£> ,

, QUESTION PRESENTED : S °

In determining the validity of union authorization

Ss cards, is the appropriate test the understanding and

intent of the employee resulting from all representations

made by Union representatives, or is the absence of a

representation that the card’ is to be used solely for the —

purpose of obtaining an election conclusive?

STATUTE INVOLVED

The statutory provision involved is Section 8 (a) (5) of |

the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.

$158, (a) (5), reproduced in Appendix B, infra, p. 8a.

PROCEEDINGS BELOW |

_ This case stems from charges of. unfair labor practices

filed against Petitioner alleging violations of $§8(a) (5)

and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act in that Peti- .

‘tioner refused to bargain with Local Union No. 503, Sheet —

- Metal. ‘Workers’ International Association, AFL-CIO

(herein sometimes: called the “Union”), and had also

violated §8(a)(1) by interference with and restraint and

coercion of its employees. The National Labor Relations

Board affirmed the order and findings of ‘its Trial Exam-

: _ iner which required Petitioner to recognize and bargain

with the Union and to cease and desist ‘from violations *

. of 48(a)(1). ‘The Court of Appeals afirmed, Judge

Schnackenberg dissenting. :

' STATEMENT OF THE CASE —

“wrote to ‘Petitioner as~ follows:

“Request is hereby made that Lincoln Manufacturing

* Co. Ine. recognize and bargain with. Sheet Metal .

pipe ae International Association, Local ‘#503 for

a collective bargaining agreement, covering Produc-

tion, Maintenance, Shipping and Receiving, Truck

Drivers and Janitorial employees of your Company

for wages, hours of work, and other working condi-

tiohs of the above-mentioned employees.” (Gen. Coun.

Exh. No. 2, JA 173). hele |

The record does not disclose the date. or time of mailing —

but reveals that the letter was réceived by- Petitioner on

Monday, May 17, after Petitioner’s president had received

a telephone call from the Regional. Office of the National

Labor Relations Board advising him that the Union had

already filed a representation petition seeking au election

among the class of employees designated in the above

letter and inquiring as to whether Petitioner would agree

to an election. The Petitioner agreed. The Union made

no claim to majority representation in its letter and made

no further demands to bargain upon Petitioner. ,

ee At the election 27 of 28 eligible voters cast ballots, 11

in favor of and 16 against the Union. The Union filed

charges of unfair labor practices in violation of §§8(a) (1)

and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act.

At.the hearing General Counsel introduced ‘authoriza-

tion cards from 21 of Petitioner’s employees (Gen. Coun. .

Exhs. Nos. 17 through 25 and 27 through 38). This was

Petitioner’s first knowledge the Union held such cards

_from.any of its employees. Petitioner objected to the

By letter, dated May 13, 1965 (a Thursday) the Union |

a

es”

introduction of 10 such cards because of representations -

made to the employees by ‘the Union solicitors at the

time that their signatures were secured that they were to

be used to obtain an election.

The Board held and the Seventh Circuit affirmed its

| holding that all the cards were validly secured, that on

- May 17, 1965 a majority of the employees in the unit had —

authorized the Union to act as their collective bargaining

representative, and that Petitioner had violated §$8(a)(1) .

and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act.

REASON FOR. GRANTING THE WRIT

The Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Instant Case

Conflicts ‘Directly With the Decision of the Court of

Appeals for the Second Circuit in NLRB v. 8. E. Nichols.

Co., F. 2d ...., 65 LRRM 2655, 55 LC §12,016 (2nd

Cir. 1967) and the Decision of the Court of Appeals for

‘the Fifth Circuit in Engineers and Fabricators, Inc. v.

NLBB, 376 F. 2d 482 (5th Cir. 1967).

The conflict between the decision in this case and the

decision of other Circuits has been expressed by the

Second Circuit in the NLRB v. 8. E. Nichols Co., ....

| i Bee , 65 LRRM 2655, 55 LC $12, 016 (2nd Cir.

1967) case as follows:

“There is some disagreement ‘among the courts of

appeals as to the effect of union tactics of the sort

here described. [Statements by solictors which cause

employees to. believe. the union would not achieve

representation status without an election.] . The

disagreement concerns the extent to. which the Board

may consider the authorization printed on the card,

often in legal language employees cannot understand,

to be nearly conclusive evidence of the signers’ intent

—5— -

in the face of oral representations that the purpose

of the card is to sécure an election. The Sixth and

Seventh Circuits have followed the Board’s position

that authorization cards which in terms confer bar-

gaining authority can be invalidated only by proof

that signatures were obtained by a misrepresentation

that the sole purpose of the cards was to obtain an

election. .... The Fifth Circuit and, as that Circuit

reads its opinion, the Eighth hold such cards invalid

if the employees were led to believe that the union

would attain representative status only by ‘winning an

election even though they were also told the cards

might be shown to the employer, Engineers & Fabri-

cators, Inc. v. NLRB, 376 F. 2d 482 (5 Cir. 1967);

Bauer Welding & Metal Fabricators, Inc. v. NLBB,

358 F. 2d 766 (8 Cir. 1966) .. .” ........ if f yas -_

_ 65 LRRM at 2659. (Italics ours). .

In the instant case the Trial Examiner resolved a

conflict in testimony between the Union solictors and the.

signers of three contested cards by accepting’ the testi-

mony of the Union representatives and discrediting that

of the employees. However, as to 7 cards, which if invalid

would deny the Union majority status‘ and hence make

the bargaining’ order improper,’ the Examiner did not

discredit the testimony: of the employees. that they signed

the cards because théy were told that they were being

secured “to get an election.” Rather, he held, and the

Board adopted his findings that the 7 cards were valid

because the employees -were not told their sole purpose

was to obtain an election.

‘The unit consisted of 29 employees- and. 15 cards were .

required for a majority. The elimination of 7 cards intro-

ee at the hearing would leave the Union with 14 valid

cards.. . Tule: 7

The Court of Appeals affirmed’ since it has accepted —

the Board’s view that the authorization cards are not

merely the beginning but they are the end of the inquiry

unless there be proof that an employee was told that they

'. were to be used solely for the purpose of obtaining an

election. NLRB v. Cumberland Shoe Corp., 351 F. 2d 917,

(6th Cir. .1965); Happach v. NLRB, 353 F. 2d 629 (7th

Cir. 1965). “The decisive question is whether the em-

ployees ‘meant to make the Union their representative’

_or instead ‘understood the cards not to be votes for the:

‘ Union’ but rather requests ‘that an election should be

called at which they would vote for or against the Union

as they then pleased.’” NLRB v. Stow Mfg..Co., 217 F. 24. -

900, 902 (2 Cir. 1954) (L. Hand, J.), cert. denied, 348

U.S. 964 (1955)... F. 2d at ........ 65 LRRM at 2659.

An inquiry that falls short of reaching a determination

as to‘whether the employee, by signing the card, intended

_to make the Union his representative or was led to believe

the card. was to be used to obtain an election and limits

itself only to the question of. whether or not the employee

-was told the purpose of the card was solely to obtain an

election, hardly promotes the purposes of the .National

_ Labor Relations Act or serves to protect the employee's

right under $7 of that Act.to join or not to join a Union.

*The Court’s opinion erroneously states that the

Trial Examiner resolved issues of credibility .and’ in-

consistencies in the testimony as to these 7 cards. In

fact, the cards were held valid simply because no repre-

sentation was made that they were for the sole purpose

of obtaining an election. The relevant portions of the

_ Trial Examiner’s opinion appear on the following pages

of the Joint Appendix: Garcia, JA 22; Pion, JA 23;

Fowler, JA 23; Cooper, JA 24; W. Peters, E. Peters, and

Towler, JA 26. if . ke

ces ad

_—

The Second and Fifth Circuits have rejected such a

lesser inquiry and have placed themselves in the shoes of

the employee, They regard the employee’s intent, his

understanding of his own acts, not the mere language

- printed on the card, as the controlling factor in determin-

ing the validity of the cards. The language on the cards

they hold is the beginning not the end of the inquiry, the

— Court in 8. E. Nichols Co. pointing out:

“Tt is all too easy for the Board or a reviewing court

to fall into the error of thinking that language clear

to them was equally clear to employees previously

unexposed to labor relations matters; to treat author-

ization cards, which union organizers present for

filling out and signing and then immediately take

away, as if they were wills or contracts carefully — -

“explained by a lawyer to his client is to substitute

form for reality.” cvoceses We BO OE ccccco - 65 LRRM at

2658. . , :

As noted in. the Yale Law Journal which the court in

the 8. E. Nichols Co. case quotes approvingly:

“If the employee thinks the cards will lead him to a -

secret ballot, he can insure himself against the possi-

bility of future retaliation and prevent harassment

only by signing. Such an employee may sign a card

planning to vote against the Union or at’ least intend-

“ing to reserve decision until he hears the employer’s

views or talks to fellow employees.” Union Authoriza-

tion Cards, 75 Yale L. J. 805, 826, 65 LRRM at 2660. .

Thus there is a conflict between the Circuits as to the

_. proper scope of the inquiry into the validity of union :

authorization cards. This is a question which has not

been but should be decided by this Court because of its

importance in effectuating the purposes of the National

Labor Relations Act and in protecting the basic rights of

pet ee

the employees to join or not to join a union. Where an

employee has not been clearly shown to have chosen to

be. represented by a union, union representation should

not be foisted upon him. The decision in §. E. Nichols Co.

which substitutes fact for form and gives recognition to

union methods of organizing and lack of sophistication

on the part of employees represents the more appro-

priate rule and one which will promote the ° purposes of

the Act and protect the rights of the public and the

parties. The view of the Board and of the 7th Circuit we

- submit is erroneous, and the order to bargain with : oan

_ union which has not established majority representation

ig improper.

- CONCLUSION —

For the above reasons Petitioner requests that this

Petition be granted.

Respectfully submitted, ae

Burton Y. WEIrTzENFELD

120 South LaSalle Street

» Chicago, Illinois 60603

“Counsel for Petitioner

and

.Mapison P. Nemson

-AgnsTeIn, Giuck, WeiTzenretp & Minow

120 South LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Of Counsel

_- la —

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

ere , In the |

Gnited States Court of Appeals

No. 15914 aa Petition to Re-.

view and Set

Lixcotn Manvuracrurine Co. Inc.,] Aside and on

Petitioner, Cross-Petition for

v. { Enforcement of an

; Order of the

NationaL Lasor RELATIONS Boarp, National Labor

Respondent. J Relations Board.

July 7, 1967

‘Before , ScHNACKENBERG, Knocu and Krtey, Circuit

ges.

Kwnocn, Circuit Judge. The petitioner, Lincoln Manu-

facturing Company, Inc., hereinafter called “Lincoln,”

pursuant to §10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act,

as amended, Title 29 U.S.C. $151, et seq., §160(f),. seeks

to set aside an Order of the National Labor Relations:

Board issued October .12, 1966, reported at 160: NLRB

No. 146, 1966 CCH NLRB 120,784, p. 26,744. The Board

has cross-petitioned under §10(e)-of the Act for énforce-

‘Ment of its Order to cease and desist from unfair labor _

practices or other infringement on employees’ rights, to

bargain collectively with Local Union 503, Sheet Metal

Workers’ International Association, AFL-CIO (herein?

after called the “Union”) on request, and to post appro-

priate notices. ! |

am 99 a=

-The Board found that Lincoln violated §8(a)(5)}-and .

(1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union,

and had independently violated 4§8(a)({1) by acts of

interference, restraint and coercion to undermine the

- Union, dissipate\its majority status and avoid the duty

to bargain. , 7

Union organizer Frank Elbrink testified that, after he’

. had addressed a meeting of 22 Lincoln employees late

in March,. 1965, on the benefits of union, representation,

explaining that the Union as. employee representative

- eould negotiate for a contraet with Lincoln on wages,

seniority, job sew. « *>lidays, vacations, ete., the em-

ployees present »anunously voted to be represented

‘by the Union. He «-.u he told the employees of his then

opinion that Lincoln’s President D. Dean Rhoads would

recognize the Union without an election. |

. Under date of May 13, 1965, on the basis of authoriza-

tion cards from 21 of. the 29 employees in the unit, Mr.

Elbrink wrote Lincoln defining the unit and asking

-- for recognition and bargaining. Lincoln stipulated that

this letter was received on or about May- 17, 1965, the

same day the Union filed a Representation Petition seek-

ing an election. : ;

A eonsent’election was held on July 8, 1965, at which

11 of the 28 then eligibles voted for and 16 against the

Union. One employee did not vote.

On the basis of the Union’s objections, the Board set

this election aside.

The cards signed by the 21 employees read:

AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRESENTATION ©

_ I, the undersigned, hereby authorize the SHEET

METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-

TION, or any affiliated Local Union thereof, to

represent me for purposes of Collective Bargaining,

and in my behalf, to, negotiate and conclude all

agreements as to hours of labor, wages, and other

‘eonditions of employment.

After hearing testimony as to the statements made

in connection with the cards, the Trial Examiner found

_ no support for ‘Lincoln’s objections that 11 of the cards

were signed on ‘representations that despite the clear |

‘by the Trial Examiner who heard the witnesses, we agree

.that_the record supports: his conclusion, as affirmed by

the. Board, that op May 17, 1965, when Lincoln received

the Union’s request for recognition, a majority of the

employees in the unit had authorized the Union to ac

as their collective bargaining representative. - a

Lincoln argues that the May 13, 1965, letter was defec-

‘tive in that it made no claim to majority status. The

letter read::

. *. (Letterhead of). : i

. Sweet Metan Workers INTERNATIONAL — ASSOCIATION ©

7 | May. 13, 1965

Mr. D. Dean Rhoads, President yes

Lincoln Manufacturing Co. Ine.

P. O. Box #1229,

Ft. Wayne, Indiana 46808

Dear Mr. Rhoads: .

Request is hereby made that Lincoln Manufacturing

Co., Ine. recognize and bargain with Sheet Metal

Workers’ International Association, Local #503 for

_ & collective bargaining agreement, covering Prodtc-

tion, Maintenance, Shipping and Receiving;- Truck

Drivers and Janitorial employees of your Company

for wages, hours of -work, -and other working condi-

tions of the above-mentioned employees.

I should be most glad to meet with you to'discuss

this matter at your convenience. I can be reached

at the above address. :

Awaiting your reply, I remain,

Yours truly, - °

/s/ Frank Elbrink

International Organizer

Se. |: ,

Certified Mail

—4a—

- Unlike the communication in Sheboygar Sausage Co., -

Inc., ‘156 ‘NLRB #130, p. 1490 (1966), on which Lincoln

relies, the letter did request bargaining, contained the

Union’s name and address so ‘that a reply could have

been made, and described the bargaining unit. As the

Trial Examiner concluded, a claim to majority status

was inherent in the explicit request for recognition and

. bargaining. Even in Sheboygan, it was noted (p. 1501)

that the mere filing of an election petition did not bar

the operative effect of a simultaneous demand for recog-

nition and bargaining and that in other contexts a claim

_ to represent’ employees might reasonably be understood

as a claim to majority representation.

_ On or about the same day that Lincoln agreed orally

to a consent. election, May 20, 1965, it mailed announce-

* © ments of its 1965 vacation plans to the employees, in

disregard of the policies and rules set out in Lincoln’s

“Handbook” which had been distributed to all employees,

under which none of the employees would have been

entitled to ‘a vacation in 1965. -Each employee was told

how many days of paid vacation he was entitled to re-

ceive and asked to indicate the days he desired to take.

Some employees were offered the choice of working on

vacation days to receive additional wages. One such

letter read: |

_ (Letterhead of) ;

Lincotn Manvuracturine Co. Inc.

.* May 20, 1965

Mr. Wayne L. Long

2518 Warsaw St.

Fort Wayne, Ind.

, Dear Wayne, |

, ; This is to keep my promise to let you know the

details of our vacation plans for this summer. It is

difficult to setia date that will suit each family ...

but, this year we are going to see how it works out

to close the plant during the school vacation period

to benefit our co-workers with children in school.

We have chosen to close the plant and office for

vacation the week of June 28th through J uly 5th;

since — Sth\is a holiday, this will give you more

time off. .

OC. . wtke.

Our records show‘ that you are entitled to 4 work-

ing days off’at ful ‘pay in addition to July 5th.

We will keep’ a skeleton cre working the entire

week of June 28th at regular pay for ‘the benefit

of the co-workers who are not entitled to a. full

approval from Leonard. If so, you will receive a pay

check for the. vacation’ days plus regular time for

immediate answer for you.

Your vacation pay check will be distributed on

June 25th. ae : at

If this vacation Pian works out well, perhaps we -

can, without setting +4 precedent this year, do the

Same next year. ;

Please fill out the form attached and place it in

the suggestion box 4S s00N as you decide on’ the days -

“you wish to vacation during that week.

My best wishes to you and your family for a

pleasant and restful vacation. a 1

Very sincerely yours,

/8/ Dean Rhoads

President.

Enclosure

President Rhoads testified that the plan to provide

vacations for 1965 was the subject of consi

initiated in January or February, 1965, with a view to

preserving good company-employee relations, but that

the plans were announced only when completely formu-

lated in mid-May, 1965. Perhaps the unfortunate timing

by the fact that at least one management official was

apparently unaware of this change in policy as late as

ee

and the conferring of an economic benefit on the em-

ployees during the week before the election were calcu- -

lated to influence its outcome. N.L.R.B. v. Exchange

Parts Co., 1964, 375 U. S. 405, 409; Browning. Industries,

Inc., 1963, 142 N.L.R.B. 1397, 1401. The Board was: jus-

tified in. holding that this action constituted interference

with the rights of the employees under §7, and therefore

violated §8(a) (1) of the Act.

It is sometimes difficult to draw the line between -

vigorous oral and written presentation of a company’s

position and veiled. threats of economic reprisal. The

three letters sent by President Rhoads: and his address ©

to the employees on the day before the election, when

viewed -as a whole, are susceptible of the interpretation

made by the Board: that they contain implicit threats

of loss of benefits and economic reprisals. N.L.R.B. v.

Marsh Supermarkets, Inc., 7.Cir., 1 - 327 .F. 2d 109,

111, cert. den. 377 US. 944.

The letters. and the speech do siieeii the ‘ial :

drawn by the Board that Union success in the election

would spell the end‘ of currently enjoyed overtime for

the employees and that President Rhoads wo refuse

_ to enter into a particular government. contract if the

Union were brought into the plant—threats calculated

to dissipate the Union’s majority status. ‘

There was a conflict in the testimony as to the state-

-ments made by President Rhoads when he took pictures

work on-July 6th.

of two of ‘the a who were distributing Union

handbills on ‘the hway near Lincoln’s. entrance after

"the Trial Examiner credited the ‘state-

ments of the two employees that Mr. Rhoads said he

could have them fired for what they were doing, rather

than Mr. Rhoads’ own testimony that the men: agreed

- to have their pictures taken and that there was no further

oo

-

conversation, or that one of them had asked if Mr. —

Rhoads would fire em, but that he had not —

to the question..

This Court will rarely disturb ‘determinations on issues ©

. of credibility made by the Trial Examiner and the Board.

N.L.R.B. v. Marsh te T Gr supra, 112; Sunshine

—— Inc. v. WLE 7 Cir 1200, 274. F. 2d 738, 741.

—<p iaaaaes ° '

} - . ,

‘ . .

° / . “

s .

a

/ 3

+h.

—ie |

If this Court were considering this matter de novo, we

might arrive at a contrary conclusion, but we are not at

liberty to consider the matter de novo. The issue before

us. is whether substantial evidence on the record considered

as a whole supports the Board’s findings. |

‘We find substantial evidence on ‘the record as a whole:

: to support: the Board’s findings that Lincoln engaged

_in coercive conduct in violation of §8(a)(1) and §8(a) (5)

of the Act. The remedies prescribed are er

ee v. Storack Corp.,-7 Cir., 1966, 357 F. 2d 893,

‘ ’

The petition for review is denied. Enforcement of the

Board’s Order is' granted. - 3 .

PETITION For Revirw DENIED;

ENFORCEMENT GRANTED.

»

| 7 No, 15914 :

: | Scunackensere, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

| From an examination of the record in this case I am

j _ convinced that the petitioner is Fp eypory in contending

‘that the order of the Board should be set aside.

A true Copy:

Teste:

Cee eee eee ee ee eee eeeeeeeeeese eee eeoeseoeseoeeeooroeseeoeoeSocooes

Clerk of the United States Court of —

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. ies

~—

APPENDIX B

- Section 8(a) (5) of The National Labor Relations Aé.

‘provides as follows:.- ‘

“See. 8 (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for -

an employer— ay

. ; -* @* @

_ “(5) . to refuse to bargain collectively with the repre-

sentatives of his employees, subject to the provisions

of Section 9(a).” :