Garland Knitting Mills of Beaufort, South Carolina, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 396 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Garland Knitting Mills of Beaufort , South Carolina,
Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union , AFL-CIO. Cases 1l-CA-3067,
I1-CA-3148. and 1 1-CA-3188
September 11, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On March 28, 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)(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 July 18, 1969, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit entered its order in these cases,' enforcing
the Board's 8(a)(1) and (3) findings and affirming
the Board's factual finding that the Union, on
March 7, 1966, possessed valid designation cards
from a majority of the employees in the unit.
However, the Court remanded the remaining portion
of the decision for reexamination of the Board's
8(a)(5) finding and its order to bargain in the light
of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court's
intervening decision in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing
Company,' stating:
. . . we remand this case to the Board to
determine whether, 'even in the absence of a Sec.
8(a)(5) violation, a bargaining order would have
been necessary to repair the unlawful effect of the
[company's unfair labor practices].' In making
that determination the Board should consider
whether, in view of the company's unfair labor
practices, `the risks that a fair rerun election
might not be possible were too great to disregard
the desires of the employees already expressed
through the cards ....'
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 these cases to a
three-member panel.
Having accepted the remand, the Board, on July
31, 1969, issued a Notice granting permission to 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 and
the General Counsel.
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 in these cases.
The record shows that in the period immediately
preceding the election. Respondent, through its
president. Bernat, violated Section 8(a)(1) and
interfered with employee freedom of choice in the
impending election by (1) promising increases in
piece rates and wages; (2) by stating, "if the Union
did not win the election the employees would never
want a union again because they would be treated so
good they would not want one"; (3) by statements
that employees would be taken care of and
improvements would be made; and (4) by
distributing antiunion tags, through supervisors,
under conditions which coerced employees to openly
declare themselves for or against the Union. 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.
On the day of the election, but after the ballots were
tallied, Bernat addressed the employees, and while
hailing the vote as a great victory, stated "All of the
time rates will be increased within the next three
weeks and the piece rate structure will be reviewed
and changed within the next six weeks." During the
ensuing weeks, Respondent, in the face of the
Board's investigation of the Union's objections to
the election, granted these and other benefits despite
the unresolved status of the question concerning
representation. Thereafter, and while the charges
filed in Case lI-CA-3067 were pending, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) by discharging or laying off
six employees because of their union activities.
Insofar as relevant here, the Supreme Court in
Gissel, supra, approved the Board's 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, in
circumstances where the unlawful conduct is less
flagrant in nature, the court held 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 of traditional remedies . . . is
slight and . . . [therefore] employee sentiment once
expressed through cards would, on balance, be
better protected by a bargaining order ....
'170 NLRB No 39.
'International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union . AFL-CIO ( Garland
) v N L.R B , 414 F 2dIncSouth CarolinaKnittin Mills of Beaufort . ..g
1214 (CADC) 'Id. p 614
'395 U S. 575 'Id p 614
178 NLRB No. 62
GARLAND KNITTING MILLS OF BEAUFORT, S.C., INC
In our opinion, a bargaining order is warranted
on the facts of this case under either of the above
standards. The unfair labor practices committed by
Respondent included a half-dozen discriminatory
discharges or layoffs of employees, in addition to
serious 8(a)(1) violations. These unfair labor
practices tended to destroy the Union's majority and
in the aggregate were so flagrant and coercive in
character as to require, even in the absence of an
8(a)(5) violation. a bargaining order to repair their
effect. Moreover, it is unlikely that the lingering
coercive effect of these unfair labor practices could
be neutralized by conventional remedies so as to
ensure a fair rerun election. We therefore find that
397
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 unfair
labor practice findings 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 March 28, 1968. in this
proceeding.