All-Tronics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 14, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 138 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All-Tronics , Inc. and Local 868, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America . Case 29-CA-1233
October 14, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On April 29, 1969, 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)(1), (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 August 5,
1969, the Board informed the parties that the Board
would reconsider its 8(a)(5) finding and the
bargaining order in this case in the light of the
guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in
N.L.R.B v Gissel Packing Companv,2 and invited
the parties to file statements of position Such
statements have been filed by the General Counsel
and Respondent.
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 that a bargaining order is necessary
to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act in
this case
Insofar as is relevant here, the Supreme Court in
Gissel Packing, supra, in stating the general
principles applicable to the issuance of bargaining
orders, agreed that the Board has authority to issue
a bargaining order to redress unfair labor practices
"so coercive that, even in the absence of a Section
8(a)(5) violation, a bargaining order would have
been necessary to repair the unlawful effect of those
[unfair labor practices]."' Additionally, the Court
approved the Board's authority to issue a bargaining
order ". in less extraordinary cases marked by less
pervasive practices which nonetheless still have the
tendency to undermine majority strength and
impede the election processes." In the latter
situation, the Board is to examine the nature and
extent of the employer's unlawful conduct and
ascertain the likelihood that use of traditional
remedies would ensure a fair election. In applying
these general principles to the cases before it, the
Court remanded three of them to the Board for a
determination as to "[whether] even though
traditional remedies might be able to ensure a fair
election there was insufficient indication that an
election (or a rerun . . . ) would definitely be a more
reliable test of the employee's desires than the card
count taken before the unfair labor practices
occurred."
In our opinion, a bargaining order is warranted
on the facts of this case under either of the above
standards. Thus, Respondent's numerous violations
of the Act prior to the election included threats of
more strigent work discipline, limitations on pay
increases, and a resort to layoffs should the
employees choose a union, as well as interrogations
of employees concerning their union sympathies.
Thereafter, four employees were discriminatorily
laid off, including the principal union organizer. The
Union, though possessing valid authorization cards
from a majority of the employees, failed to receive a
majority in the election, which was subsequently set
aside on the basis of Respondent's unlawful conduct.
Following the election, and while objections were
pending, Respondent granted a general wage
increase designed to further erode Union support.
By engaging in such conduct, Respondent
demonstrated a propensity to engage in violations of
the Act under conditions which heighten the
possibility that relief in the form of customary cease
and desist, backpay, and reinstatement provisions,
etc., will not effectuate statutory policies herein. In
these circumstances, we are satisfied that a
bargaining order would be necessary, even in the
absence of an 8(a)(5) violation, to remedy the other
unfair labor practices in this case. Additionally, we
find that Respondent, by engaging in the foregoing
conduct and refusing to recognize the Union as
majority representative of its employees, violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act The Respondent's
pattern of unlawful conduct was of such a nature as
to have a lingeririg effect and use of traditional
remedies here is unlikely to ensure a fair or
coercion-free rerun election. We are persuaded that
the unambiguous cards validly executed by a
majority of employees in the unit represent a more
reliable measure of employee desire on the issue of
representation in this case, and that the policies of
the Act will be effectuated by the imposition of a
bargaining order. Accordingly, we shall reaffirm the
findings and remedy provided in the original
Decision and Order herein.4
' 175 NLRB No 110
'395 U S 575
'Id at 615
'General Stencils, Inc, 178 NLRB No 18, World Carpets, Inc, 176
NLRB No 138
179 NLRB No. 19
ALL-TRONICS, INC. 139
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER record as a whole, the National Labor Relations
Board reaffirms its Order of April 29, 1969, in this
In view of the foregoing, and on the basis of the proceeding