C & G Electric, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 427 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

C & G ELECTRIC, INC.
C & G Electric, Inc. and Local Union 35,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO. Case I-CA-6135
December 16, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On June 28 , 1968, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding ,' finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaged in
certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , and ordering the
Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act , including an order directing
the Respondent to bargain with the Union.
On June 16, 1969, the Supreme Court of the
United States issued its opinion in N.L.R.B. v.
Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575, in which it
laid down certain guidelines relative to the propriety
of finding violations of Section 8(a)(5) and issuing
orders to bargain upon such violations or violations
of other sections of the Act.
Thereafter , the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit remanded the instant
proceeding to the Board for reconsideration in the
light of the Supreme Court's opinion . On August 1,
1969, the Board notified the parties of its decision to
reconsider , and invited statements of position.
Statements of position have been received from the
Respondent , the General Counsel, and the Charging
Party . We have again reviewed the entire record
including the statements of position , and having
reconsidered the matter , affirmed the Board's
original finding and order in this respect for the
reasons stated below.
In its original decision the Board found, in
agreement with the Trial Examiner, that
Respondent had engaged in violations of Section
8(a)(1) in that it granted unilateral wage increases to
a substantial number of its employees and coercively
interrogated its employees concerning their union
activities . The Board also found that a majority of
'172 NLRB No. 91.
427
Respondent ' s employees had signed valid
authorization cards for the Union and that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) when it
refused to bargain with the Union.
The Respondent contends that the Board
erroneously upheld the Trial Examiner's finding of
unlawful interrogation . We disagree and reaffirm
our decision in that respect . Respondent goes on to
suggest that , absent a finding of unlawful
interrogation , the remaining 8(a)(l) violations,
involving the unilateral granting of wage increase,
would not be sufficient to justify issuing a
bargaining order under Gissel. However, where, as
here, the Employer grants substantial wage increases
to a high percentage of his employees in violation of
Section 8 (a)(1) the employees are not likely to miss
the inference that "the source of benefits now
conferred is also the source from which future
benefits must flow and which may dry up if it is not
obliged ." N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts , 375 U.S.
405. We find that this unlawful conduct was of such
a nature as to have a lingering effect and the use of
traditional remedies was unlikely to insure a fair or
free rerun election . Thus, even in the absence of the
unlawful interrogation we would conclude that the
violations of Section 8(a)(1) require the bargaining
order issued herein for the reasons stated above."
Finally, 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.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and the entire record in
this case, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby reaffirms the Order issued in this proceeding
on June 28, 1968.
'Respondent further contends that Gissel requires that the General
Counsel affirmatively show that a secret ballot election cannot be held. In
our opinion , Gissel does not impose such a requirement , but instead
requires the Board to apply the tests set forth in the Court's opinion to the
unfair labor practices found in order to determine whether a bargaining
order should issue . N L R.B v. L.B Foster Co.. 418 F 2d I (C.A. 9).
180 NLRB No. 52