Easton Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1970

180 N.L.R.B. 1092 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Easton Packing Company and Local 195,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO. Case
4-CA-4202
February 4, 1970
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On June 20 , 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 engaging in
certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(l) 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 that the
Respondent bargain with the Union . Subsequently,
the Board sought enforcement of its Order and on
September 30, 1969, the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit filed its opinion in which it (1)
affirmed the Board 's findings that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by offering
employees special benefits if they abandoned a strike
initiated over Respondent ' s refusal to bargain, but
(2) remanded the case for reconsideration of the
affirmative bargaining order in light of the Supreme
Court' s opinion in N.L.R. B. v. Gissel Packing
Company, 393 U.S. 575.
On October 23, 1969, the Board issued a notice to
all parties stating its intention to reconsider the
issues made the subject of the Court remand and
giving the parties leave to file statements of position
with respect to such reconsideration . Counsel for the
General Counsel and Respondent filed statements of
position . We have again reviewed the entire record,
including the statements of position, and having
reconsidered the matter , we affirm the Board's
original findings and order in this respect for the
reasons stated below.
The Union which on the morning of January 19,
1967, had seven cards out of a unit of I l employees,
presented these cards to the Respondent who
examined them and raised no objection to the
validity of the cards or to the appropriateness of the
proposed unit. The Respondent then proceeded to
discuss with the Union terms of recognition, but
refused to sign a recognition agreement containing a
questionable union - security clause . Respondent
broke off the meeting, its attorney promising to
'171 NLRB No 183
contact the Union within a half an hour. After
failing to hear from Respondent's attorney an hour
later, the Union formed the seven card signers, who
had not as yet started work, into a picket line. Two
of them abandoned the strike 4 days later. On
January 26, at the Union's request, a meeting was
held with the Respondent's president who stated he
was "not ready for a union now ." A similar meeting
was held on February 2, again at the Union's
request , which terminated with the Respondent's
president saying he would think about the matter.
At neither meeting did he express any doubts
concerning the Union's majority status.
During the first week of the strike the Respondent
telephoned one striker-card signer and offered him
anything he wanted - and specifically Blue
Cross-Blue Shield coverage - if he returned to
work. And then about a week later told another
employee the strikers should return to work and
they would receive Blue Cross-Blue Shield coverage,
pay for time lost striking, and a pay increase. A
third employee also testified to similar promises
during the period in question if he would abandon
the strike. These various promises the Trial
Examiner, with Board and Court affirmance, found
to violate Section 8(a)(1).
Having carefully reconsidered the matter, we
reaffirm our previous finding that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and that a
bargaining order is both necessary and proper to
remedy that violation.' However, in view of the
Supreme Court' s opinion in Gissel,3 we do not
reaffirm our earlier finding which predicated the
Respondent's violation of Section 8(a)(5) on the
absence of a good-faith doubt of the Union's
majority status . We find, rather, that by refusing to
bargain with the Union and by engaging in a series
of unfair labor practices which were calculated and
tended to undermine the Union's majority status,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1). The
unfair labor practices were of such nature as to
render it doubtful that the coercive effects of
Respondent's unfair labor practices could be
eliminated by traditional remedies, so as to ensure a
fair election. Under these circumstances, we find
that the purposes of the Act can better be
effectuated and employee rights better protected by
reliance on the employees' desires as expressed by
their signed authorization cards than on the results
of an election. Therefore, the bargaining order
'The employees who abandoned the strike did not seek the return of
their authorization cards and did not in any other manner indicate to the
Union or Respondent they no longer sought union representation . In these
circumstances the abandonment cannot be construed as an implied
withdrawal of their union authorization . Palmer Asbestos & Rubber Corp ,
160 NLRB 723 at 730 Accordingly, we find that the Union represented a
majority of employees at all times relevant
'N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Company, supra
180 NLRB No. 175
EASTON PACKING CO. 1093
previously issued is appropriate to remedy the ORDER
Respondent ' s violations of Section 8(a)(5), as well as
to remedy the other unfair labor practices found . It is hereby ordered that the Order issued in this
Accordingly , we hereby reaffirm the Order case on June 20, 1968, be, and it hereby is,
heretofore issued in this case . affirmed.