Louis Stark, "Labor Board Orders Edison Co. To Break Contract With AFL," The New York Times, November 12, 1937, p. 1, col. 6. 10. Ibid.

—at I09 (1937)(where the respondent treated the contracts as exclusive, though by their terms they applied to union members only), the respondent was ordered to cease "giving effect to their contracts" (which are "invalid") and post notices stating that it will so cease.

The Board held the contract invalid because the union had not been certified under section 9 (a) as the exclusive representative

Where a proceeding before the National Labor Relations Board not only was instituted prior to the time a State labor relations act became effective, but no proceedings had been taken under the State act, there has been no exertion of State authority which can be taken to remove the need for the exercise of Federal power to protect interstate and foreign commerce.

But if the contracting minority union is being assisted by the employer by an unfair labor practice, the resulting contract would constitute coercion in violation of the NLRA whether or not there is a rival union.

This is the usual form of order, and has frequently been employed in cases where this Court has sustained Board orders

The object of the National Labor Relations Act is to provide reasonable preventive measure to protect interstate and foreign commerce, which Congress was entitled to provide.

Employer control is not limited to company unions, but may extend to locals of the AF of L. or the CIO This has given rise to AF of L.-CIO rivalry and has involved the Board in a controversy with the federal courts in the Ambridge case.

COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2014). democracy” by civic-minded capitalists such as the Filenes; some were cynical exercises in welfare capitalism devised by employers to keep unions out by attempting to assuage employee discontent such as the plan initiated by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. at the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company; some were outright self …

While Section 8 (a)(2) does not necessarily prohibit an employer from signing a "members only" or other nonexclusive agreement with a minority union, an employer's willingness to negotiate with a minority union is nearly always suspect as a form of "support" for the union's attempt to represent all employees

[CITATION] National v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

[HTML] Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board for the Fiscal Year Ended...