NLRB v. Masters-Lake Success, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 February 1961 |
| Docket Number | Docket 26561.,No. 199,199 |
| Citation | 287 F.2d 35 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. MASTERS-LAKE SUCCESS, INC., and Metal, Plastic, Miscellaneous Sales, Novelty and Production Workers, Local No. 222, Independent, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Allan I. Mendelsohn, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Melvin J. Welles, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Bernard H. Fitzpatrick, of Butler, Fitzpatrick & DeSio, New York City, for respondent employer.
Murray A. Frank, Brooklyn, N. Y., for respondent union.
Before CLARK, WATERMAN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
Under a collective bargaining agreement with Masters, Inc., respondent union was recognized as the sole collective bargaining agent for Masters, Inc.'s employees at its midtown New York department store. The agreement, which contained a union security clause, by its terms applied also to any new store opened by Masters, Inc., in the "Metropolitan area." In the fall of 1957, Masters, Inc., incorporated the respondent employer, Masters-Lake Success, Inc., for the purpose of opening a branch store at Lake Success. At the request of the respondent union the respondent employer treated the collective bargaining agreement as applicable to the new store. Thus, during the hiring process and before the Lake Success store was open, the employer accepted the union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent at the new store. The Board determined that the Lake Success store was a new bargaining unit, rather than an accretion to the downtown store, and held that recognition of the union as exclusive agent before it had a majority of employees resulted in violations of § 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) and § 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), (2), and (3) and § 158(b) (1) (A) and (2). 124 N.L.R.B. No. 73. The Board's action in thus permitting a new group of employees at a new store to choose freely a bargaining representative is fully in accord with the policy of § 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157, and is a valid exercise of the Board's wide discretion in determining the appropriate bargaining unit. Accordingly, the Board's order, in so far as it brings to an end the unfair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zdanok v. Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division
...location may constitute an unfair labor practice. Chicago Freight Car & Parts Co., 83 N.L.R.B. 1163 (1949); N. L. R. B. v. Masters-Lake Success, Inc., 287 F.2d 35 (2 Cir. 1961), enforcing 124 N.L.R.B. 580 (1959). But these decisions, resting on the agreement's unlawful interference in the s......
-
Local One, Amalgamated Lithographers of America v. Stearns & Beale, Inc.
...it interfered with the employees' right to choose their own representative. Id. at 202-03. Again, in N.L.R.B. v. Masters-Lake Success, Inc., 287 F.2d 35 (2d Cir.1961) (per curiam), we enforced an N.L.R.B. order finding that an employer committed an unfair labor practice by applying an exist......
-
Meijer, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...guided by the Board's own past blessings, hardly warranted the Board's harsh reimbursement remedy order. NLRB v. Masters-Lake Success, Inc., 287 F.2d 35, 36 (2d Cir. 1961). Cf. Intalco Aluminum Corp. v. NLRB, 417 F.2d 36, 40-43 (9th Cir. The crux of this case was the Board's failure to anal......
-
Local 627, Intern. Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B.
...and the need to allow a new group of employees to choose freely their bargaining representative, See NLRB v. Masters-Lake Success, Inc., 287 F.2d 35, 36 (2d Cir. 1961) (per curiam). As a result, the Board has applied accretion restrictively, so as not to tread too heavily on the right of em......