National Labor Relations Bd. v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co., 20
| Decision Date | 10 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | Docket 22359.,No. 20,20 |
| Citation | 199 F.2d 713 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. NILES-BEMENT-POND CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Arnold Ordman and Mary E. Williamson, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Walfrid G. Lundborg, Hartford, Conn., for Niles-Bement-Pond Co., respondent.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board, one member dissenting, ordered the respondent to desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the duly designated bargaining agent of its employees about its so called Christmas bonus and from taking any unilateral action in respect to said bonus without prior consultation with the union.
Since 1938, it has been the uniform practice of the respondent, except in 1946, when its employees were on strike, to make what it calls Christmas gifts to most of its employees. These "gifts" were in money and the amount was either a percentage of the recipient's entire earnings or his pay for a designated period, as for a week.
On December 11, 1950, the president of the respondent notified the employees by letter to the effect that for that year the estimated cost of a retirement fund, which had been established for the employees, would be several times what had been distributed each year-end and that, consequently, the Christmas check for that year would be for a dollar for each year of continuous service with a minimum of five dollars.
Soon thereafter a representative of the union which was the authorized bargaining agent of the employees requested a meeting with the respondent "to discuss the payment of the Christmas bonus and the retirement plan." The respondent assented to the request to discuss the retirement plan but refused to bargain in respect to the Christmas bonus on the ground that it was a gift, the making of which was entirely optional and not within the scope of bargaining as required by the statute.
The Board found that the Christmas gifts, so made, were within the meaning of "wages" as that term is used in Section 9(a) of the Act, and that this was a matter upon which the respondent was bound by law to bargain if requested. It held that the respondent had violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by unilateral action in the payment of bonuses and by refusing to bargain collectively on that subject.
Since there is no issue of fact as to the respondent's refusal to bargain as to the payment of bonuses, decision turns upon whether their payment is so related to rates of pay, wages, hours or conditions of employment, that they fall within one or more of the statutory terms just mentioned. If so, the respondent did violate Section 8(a) (5) in refusing to bargain concerning them. And if that was a violation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Katz
...Co., 1941, 312 U.S. 426, 61 S.Ct. 693, 85 L.Ed. 930; N. L. R. B. v. National Shoes, 2 Cir., 1953, 208 F.2d 688; N. L. R. B. v. Niles-Bement Pond Co., 2 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 713. The situation just described is different from ones where there are separate independent acts that violate § 8(a)......
-
National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Wooster Div. of Borg-W. Corp.
...875 (group insurance program); Richfield Oil Corp. v. N. L. R. B., D.C.Cir., 231 F.2d 717 (stock purchase plan); N. L. R. B. v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co., 2 Cir., 199 F.2d 713 (Christmas bonus); N. L. R. B. v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 1 Cir., 205 F.2d 131, 136 (Check-off proposal). The area of c......
-
Multnomah Cnty. v. Multnomah Cnty. Corr. Deputy Ass'n
...concluded, "it was the [employer's] statutory duty to bargain on the subject of pensions." Id. ; see also N. L. R. B. v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co. , 199 F.2d 713, 714 (2d Cir 1952) (citing Jacobs , 196 F.2d 680, and holding that, where existing agreement did not cover remunerative "bonuses," NL......
-
White v. National Labor Relations Board
...the annual bonus, although in the absence of a contract such bonuses are matters over which bargaining is required. N.L.R.B. v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co., 2 Cir., 199 F.2d 713. "7. Admitting that its minimum wage rate was substantially lower than comparable rates in the area, the Company at fir......