A. J. Krajewski Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 3, 1970

180 N.L.R.B. 1071 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

A. J. KRAJEWSKI MFG. CO. 1071
A. J. Krajewski Manufacturing Co., Inc . and United
Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO
A. J. Krajewski Manufacturing Co., Inc. and United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases 1-CA-5666 and I-RC-9085
February 3, 1970
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On September 20, 1968, the National Labor
Relations Board issued its Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding,' finding that Respondent
had engaged in certain conduct in violation of
Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and ordering
Respondent to cease and desist therefrom, and to
take certain affirmative action, set forth therein.
Thereafter, on July 17, 1969, the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit entered its
order in this case,' finding no substantial evidence to
support the Board's 8(a)(1) finding with respect to
creating the impression of surveillance, enforcing the
Board's 8(a)(3) finding of Andreoli's discriminatory
discharge, and affirming the Board's factual finding
that the Union, on July 13, 1966, possessed valid
union authorization cards from a majority of the
employees in the unit. However, the court remanded
the remaining portion of the Board's Decision and
Order for reconsideration by the Board of its 8(a)(5)
finding and its order to bargain in light of the
guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of the
United States in N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing
Company.3
Following the remand, the Board, on August 12,
1969, issued a notice permitting the parties to
submit statements of position with respect to the
issue remanded by the court of appeals. Such
statements were duly filed by the Respondent,
Charging Party, and General Counsel.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has considered the statements of
position and the entire record in this proceeding
and, for the reasons set forth below, shall reaffirm
its original finding that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to recognize
the Union as majority representative of the
employees, and further finds that a bargaining order
is necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies
of the Act.
The record shows that Andreoli was the leader of
the union movement among the employees, having
made the initial contact with the union
representatives and having solicited the bulk of the
authorization cards. Andreoli was discharged during
the critical preelection period. Respondent contends,
in its statement of position, that this discharge was
the result of a single isolated action and is
insufficient to establish a violation of Section 8(a)(5)
or to sustain a bargaining order. We find no merit
,in this contention. It is a well-established fact that a
discriminatory discharge of an employee because of
his union affiliation goes to the very heart of the
Act. Furthermore, the discharge of the union leader,
as here, serves as a warning to the employees that
the employer has the power to take action which
affects the employees' livelihoods and that it is
willing to implement such power against Union
adherents. The implementation of such power
against the union ringleader is just as likely to
accomplish the destruction of employee support for
unionization as would a greater number of unfair
labor practices which individually have a lesser
impact.
In Gissel, supra, the Supreme Court stated, inter
alia, that the Board may find an 8(a)(5) violation
and issue a bargaining order where "the possibility
of erasing the effects of [the] past practices and
ensuring a fair election (or a fair rerun) by the use
cif traditional remedies . is slight and . .
[therefore] employee sentiment once expressed
through cards would, on balance, be better protected
by a bargaining order ...."0
In our opinion, a bargaining order is warranted
on the facts of this case. After rejecting the Union's
bargaining demand, the Respondent successfully
used the time available before the election to
undermine the Union's majority by discriminatorily
discharging Andreoli, the leader of the Union's
organizational drive among the employees. It is
unlikely that the lingering coercive effect of this
discriminatory discharge could be neutralized by
conventional remedies so as to ensure a fair rerun
election. We therefore find that the employee
sentiment expressed through the cards is a more
reliable measure of employee desires and that
statutory policies are better effectuated by issuing a
bargaining order than directing a rerun election.
Accordingly, we shall reaffirm the 8(a)(5) and (1)
finding and the remedy provided therefor in the
original Decision and Order herein.
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
In view of the foregoing, and on the basis of the
record as a whole, the National Labor Relations
Board reaffirms its Order of September 20, 1968, in
this proceeding with respect to the 8(a)(5) and (1)
finding and the issuance of a bargaining order.
'172 NLRB No. 245.
'A. J. Kratewskf Manufacturing Co, Inc. v. N L R.B., 413 F 2d 673.
'395 U.S. 575
'Id at 614
180 NLRB No. 173