Union Carbide and Carbon Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 4, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 514 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ELECTRO METALLURGICAL COMPANY , A DIVISION OF UNION CARBIDE AND
CARBON CORPORATION and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS,
PETITIONER . Case No. 9-RC-1483. June 4,1952.
Order Denying Motion
On April 18, 1952, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election' in the above-entitled proceeding. Thereafter, on April 30,
1952, the Petitioner filed a motion for clarification or amendment of
decision, alleging that the last sentence in footnote 2 of the Board's
Decision constituted a pronouncement on an issue not then before
the Board and requested that it be deleted or amended. The Employer
submitted a memorandum in opposition to the motion. The Petitioner
submitted a reply memorandum and the Employer counter-replied.
The Board has considered the Petitioner's motion and the several
memoranda submitted by the parties.
In footnote 2 of its original Decision the Board listed and found
without merit various contentions of the Employer relating to the
status of the CIO as the proper Petitioner in this case. In its con-
cluding sentence, to which the Petitioner now objects, the Board stated :
"Should the Petitioner be selected and certified as the bargaining rep-
resentative of the Employer's employees, the Employer would be obli-
gated to bargain only with that labor organization and its agents." As
this statement was pertinent to specific objections made by the Em-
ployer and rejected by the Board, the Board is of the opinion that
the sentence was properly included in its original Decision. The
statement reflects the basic tenet of the Act that certification by the
Board establishes a labor organization's right to be the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of an Employer's employees and a corollary
duty on the part of the Employer to bargain only with that organiza-
tion. It does not, of course, preclude an equally well-settled principle
that, if the Board during the certification period upon good cause
shown should modify or amend its original certification in any manner,
it would be the duty of the Employer to bargain with the labor organi-
zation designated in the modified or amended certification. No issue of
this nature, however, is now before us and the Board is not to be
taken as having ruled in any respect upon such an issue. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of the Petitioner be, and it
hereby is, denied.
198 NLRB No. 186.
99 NLRB No: 93.