Heck's Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 780 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Heck's'36c. and Food Store Employees Union Local
No. 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen - of North America, AFL-CIO. Case
9-CA-4429
December 1, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On March 3, 1969, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceedings,' finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices in violation 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 bargaining 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, affirming
generally the Board's use of authorization cards in
determining a union's majority status and the
Board's power to issue a bargaining order based
upon such showing where the employer's unfair
labor practices had a tendency to undermine the
Union's majority and impede the election process.
Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia remanded the instant
proceeding to the Board for reconsideration in the
light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Gissel. On
August 7, 1969, the Board issued a Notice
permitting the parties to file statements of position
with regard to the application of Gissel to this
proceeding. Subsequently, Respondent 2 the
Charging Party, and the General Counsel filed
statements in support of their respective positions.
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
,174 NLRB No. 138.
'Respondent's statement was in the nature of a request for oral
argument which is hereby denied inasmuch as the record and the
statements of position adequately present the issues and positions of the
parties.
is necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies
of the Act in this case.
In our initial decision the Board found that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by: Coercively
interrogating its employees about their union
sympathies and activities; threatening employees
with discharge for engaging in union activity;
encouraging employees to report to the Respondent
the Union activities of other employees; instructing
employees not to associate with or contact union
representatives; informing employees that a former
employee had been discharged for engaging in union
activity and requesting employees so to inform other
employees; and, conducting an illegal poll of its
employees' union sympathies in a coercive
atmosphere. We also found that the Respondent had
an overall record "showing continued engagement in
impermissable interrogation, surveillance, discharges
and illegal polls, nearly all of which were
unremedied, a record permeated throughout with
constant evidence of company antipathy toward the
Union together with a single overall established
policy that flagrantly opposed the provisions of the
Act."3 The Board further found that at the time of
its original bargaining request the Union represented
a majority of the Employer's employees in an
appropriate unit and was entitled to recognition as
their exclusive collective-bargaining representative,
that the Employer did not have a good-faith doubt
of the Union's majority status and engaged in the
aforementioned conduct in order to dissipate the
Union's majority, violating Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act, and issued a bargaining order.
In view of the standards set forth in the Supreme
Court's opinion in Gissel Packing, supra, we find
that by refusing to bargain with the Union and by
engaging in a series of unfair labor practices to
undermine the Union's majority status the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5). The coercive
effects of Respondent's unfair labor practices cannot
be eliminated or neutralized by traditional remedies,
and were of such a nature as to make a fair election
doubtful, if not impossible. In these circumstances,
the purposes of the Act can better be effectuated by
reliance on the employees' desires as expressed by
signed authorization cards than on the result of an
election. Therefore, the bargaining order previously
issued to remedy the Employer's unfair labor
practices is appropriate to remedy its violations of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and we shall
affirm it.
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
In view of the foregoing, and on the basis of the
record as a whole, the National Labor Relations
Board reaffirms its Decision and Order of March 3.
1969.
'174 NLRB No 138.
179 NLRB No. 134