Interstate Equipment Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 621 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT CO. 621
Interstate Equipment Co., Inc., Interstate Highway
Express, Inc., , and Cletus G. Allen, Sole
Proprietor , d/b/a Allen Motor Express and Local
135, 'International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America.
Interstate Equipment Co., Inc., Interstate Highway
Express, Inc., and Cletus G. Allen, Sole
Proprietor , d/b/a Allen Motor Express and
William D . Bundy.
Interstate Equipment Co., Inc ., Interstate Highway
Express, Inc., and Cletus G. Allen, Sole
Proprietor , d/b/a Allen Motor Express and Frank
Bugh.
Interstate Equipment Co., Inc., Interstate Highway
Express, • Inc., and Cletus G. Allen, - Sole
Proprietor , d/b/a Allen Motor Express and
William Bundy . Cases 25-CA-2462, 25-CA-2510,
25-CA-2510-2, and 25-CA-2707
December 10, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On July 26, 1968 , the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding (172 NLRB No. 145),
wherein it ordered , among other things, that the
Respondent cease and desist from refusing to
recognize and bargain with the Union
notwithstanding the fact that the Union had not
received a majority of the votes cast in a Board
election. Subsequently , the Supreme Court of the
United States in N . L R B v. Gissel Packing
Company, 395 U.S. 575, June 16, 1969, upheld a
Board bargaining order given under similar
circumstances However , in affirming the Board's
action the Court delineated the criteria under which
a- bargaining order would be appropriate.
Accordingly , in view of the Supreme Court's
decision, the Board, sua .sponte, has reconsidered the
subject case , as well as a number of other similar
cases , in light of the criteria set forth by the
Supreme Court in Gissel , supra, hence the instant
supplemental decision In accordance with Board
notice and invitation, statements of position with
respect to the impact of the Supreme Court's
Decision i n Gisssel Packing Company, supra, on the
Board ' s outstanding Decision and Order in the
subject case were filed by the Respondent, General
Counsel , and Charging Party.
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 8(a)(5)
and -(l) 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
We have heretofore found that the Union
represented a majority. of the Respondent's
employees in an appropriate unit, on March 1 and 3,
1966,. when it made its initial demands for
recognition and bargaining upon the Respondent.
The Respondent refused the Union's proffer` of
signed authorization cards for r verification of
signatures and made it clear that recognition would
only be granted after. the Union proved its majority
through the medium of a Board conducted election,
Thereafter, and continuing through April 9, 1966,
when the Union failed to receive a majority of the
votes cast in a Board-conducted election, the
Respondent interrogated its employees as to the
activities of the Union and their own union
sympathies, threatened reprisals for union
adherence, and discharged or laid off a number of
employees because of their union activities or
membership. Thus C. Allen, one of the
Respondent's principal officers, interrogated
employees, Eads, Hamilton, and Bundy on separate
occasions in regard to their union sympathies and
the substance of a number of union meetings, and
threatened them with discharge, etc., should the
Union be successful in its organizational campaign.
Additionally, the Respondent during the period
March 3, 1966, through April 9, 1966, implemented
its threats and discharged or laid off employees
Shepherd, Hamilton, Bugh, and Bundy because of
their known membership in, and activities on behalf
of, the Union.
The aforementioned conduct of the Respondent
occurring subsequent to the demand for recognition
and the filing of the election petition, which we have
found to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act, has undermined the Union's majority
strength. By engaging in such conduct and refusing
to recognize the Union as majority representative of
its employees, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
Further, we are satisfied that a bargaining order
is warranted to remedy the unlawful refusal to
bargain. Insofar as is relevant here, the Supreme
Court in Gissel, supra, 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," and remanded three of the cases
before it 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
179 NLRB No. 167
622 DECISIONS OE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees' desires than the card count taken before
the unfair labor practices occurred." In the instant
case,.,the Respondent's pattern of unlawful conduct
was of such a nature as to have a lingering effect,
and the 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 ' '
In view of the extensive violations of • the Act
committed by the Respondent, both before and
subsequent to the settlement 'agreement (which was
revoked by the Regional Director prior to the
issuance of the consolidated complaint herein), we
are not convinced that the Respondent's action in1
subsequently recognizing and executing a 3-year
contract with the Union 'provides an adequate
remedy for its prior conduct here disclosed or that
there will not be' a recurrence of such 'conduct in the
future.' Accordingly, we shall reaffirm the unfair
labor practice findings and the remedy provided
therefor in the original Decision and Order herein
ORDER
In view of the foregoing, and on the basis of the
entire record, the National Labor Relations Board
reaffirms its Order of July 26, 1968, in this
proceeding
'Southern Toure, Inc 167 NLRB No 42, United Stater Gvpcum
Companv, 143 NLRB 1122, 1127, NLRB v American National
Insurance Co 343 U S 395, 399, In 4, NLRB v Mexia Textile Milk,
Inc 399 U S 563