May Department Stores Co. v. Labor Board, 326 U.S. 376 (1945)

May Department Stores Co. v. Labor Board


No. 39


Argued October 12, 1945
Decided December 10, 1945
326 U.S. 376

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

1. The conclusion of the National Labor Relations Board that all nonsupervisory employees in the men’s busheling rooms of a department store, though numbering only 30 to 40 of the store’s 5,000 employees, constituted an appropriate unit for collective bargaining under § 9(b) of the Act, since these employees had a degree of self-organization and a special trade which sufficiently differentiated them from other employees, was amply supported by the evidence. P. 380.

2. In the circumstances of the election of a Joint Council as bargaining representative in this case -- the Board having directed the placing of the name of the Joint Council on the ballot, although the employees in the unit were members of a local union which the Joint Council represented -- there is no basis for the employer’s objection to the certification on the ground of possible confusion of the employees. P. 381.

3. Under the National Labor Relations Act, it is the duty of the employer to bargain collectively only with the duly recognized or accredited representative of the employees, and disregard of this duty is a violation of § 8(1) of the Act. P. 383.

4. The National Labor Relations Board was justified in finding that the employer, in seeking the War Labor Board’s approval of wage increases for its employees, including employees in the unit here involved, without bargaining collectively with the certified representative in respect of the wages, was guilty of an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8(1) of the Act. P. 384.

5. The admission in evidence and consideration by the Board of announcements made over the store’s public address system and in the house organ concerning the application for War Labor Board approval of wage increases for its employees did not deny the employer’s freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 386.

6. In the circumstances of this case, the injunction against the employer will be modified so as not to apply generally to all violations of the rights of the employees in the bargaining unit here involved, but only to other interferences, in violation of § 8(1) or otherwise, with the certified agent’s representation of these employees. P. 392. 146 F.2d 66 modified and affirmed.

Certiorari, 324 U.S. 838, to review a decree ordering enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board, 53 N.L.R.B. 1366.