Whether an employer should be required to bargain with a union
previously selected as employees' bargaining representative or, in
view of lapse of time and changed conditions, a new election should
be held is a question for decision by the Board, and not by the
Circuit Court of Appeals. P.
314 U. S. 513.
117 F.2d 921 reversed.
Certiorari, 313 U.S. 557, to review a judgment entered on a
petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of
an order, 16 N.L.R.B. 684. The judgment sustained the order as
made, but introduced a modification requiring the Board to conduct
an election as prayed by the respondent employer in a petition for
rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
The Board found that the respondent, P. Lorillard Company, had
committed an unfair labor practice within the meaning of ยง 8(5) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, 453, by refusing to
bargain collectively with Pioneer Tobacco Workers' Local Industrial
Union No. 55, which was at the time the duly selected bargaining
representative of a majority of Lorillard's employees. The Board
affirmatively ordered Lorillard to bargain collectively
Page 314 U. S. 513
with Local No. 55. On the Board's petition for enforcement, the
court below sustained the Board's finding, but, expressing the
belief that, because of lapse of time and changed conditions, the
Local might no longer represent the majority of employees, modified
the Board's order so as to require it to conduct an election to
determine whether the Local had lost its majority due to a shift of
employees to a rival independent association. The Board had
considered the effect of a possible shift in membership, alleged to
have occurred subsequent to Lorillard's unfair labor practice. But
it had reached the conclusion that, in order to effectuate the
policies of the Act, Lorillard must remedy the effect of its prior
unlawful refusal to bargain by bargaining with the union shown to
have had a majority on the date of Lorillard's refusal to bargain.
This was for the Board to determine, and the court below was in
error in modifying the Board's order in this respect.
Labor
Board v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., 310 U.
S. 318,
310 U. S.
339-340;
I.A. of M. v. Labor Board,
311 U. S. 72,
311 U. S. 82.
See also Labor Board v. Falk Corp., 308 U.
S. 453,
308 U. S.
458-459. The judgment of the court below is reversed
with directions to enforce the order of the Board.
Reversed.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS took no part in the
consideration or decision of this case.
