Levi Strauss & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 415 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

LEVI STRAUSS & CO. 415
Levi Strauss & Co. and Southwest Regional Joint
Board , Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO. Cases 16-CA-2874 and
16-RC-4459
December 16, 1969
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
On June 28, 1968, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' finding that Respondent
had violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act,
and ordering Respondent to cease and desist
therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action.
Thereafter, that Decision and Order was reaffirmed,
as modified, by the Board in a Supplemental
Decision issued April 11, 1969.' Subsequently, the
Board petitioned the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for
enforcement of its Order, but then moved the Court
for an order permitting the Board to reexamine its
Section 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.3
The Court having granted the Board ' s motion, the
Board, on August 19, 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 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 , reaffirms its
finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act by refusing on October 7, 1966, to
recognize and bargain with the Union. which
represented a majority of the employees in an
appropriate unit,' and that a bargaining order is
1172 NLRB No. 57.
'175 NLRB No. 57.
'395 U.S. 575
necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies of
the Act.
The Board found, and the record shows, that
during the period from September 1966, when the
Union demanded recognition and filed a petition to
the election of January 6, 1967, Respondent
committed unfair labor practices and interfered with
the election, as follows: The Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by (1) announcing
additional overtime benefits to induce employees to
vote against the Union; (2) maintaining in effect,
with the intent to enforce, an illegal no-solicitation
rule; and (3) plant manager Rutter's veiled threats
to all production and maintenance employees that
the selection of the Union would result in loss of
benefits relating to production quotas and leaves of
absence.' In addition, on the day of the election, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by
discriminatorily discharging union chairlady Casey,
and violated Section 8(a)(1) by assistant plant
manager Milstead's coercive interrogation of
employee Beasley. Following the election,
Respondent continued its unfair labor practices by
forelady Weigman's coercive interrogation of
employee Nick, in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
In our opinion ,,the above conduct establishes that,
at the least, this is one of those "less extraordinary
cases marked by less pervasive practices which
nonetheless still have the tendency to undermine
majority strength and impede the election
processes ," in which the Supreme Court , in Gissel,
approved the use of a bargaining order.
Accordingly , we find that even if, as Respondent
contends, it has remedied its invalid no-solicitation
rule and made union chairlady Casey whole for her
discharge , the possibility of erasing the effects of
Respondent ' s past practices and insuring a fair rerun
election by the use of traditional remedies , though
present , is slight, and that employee sentiment
expressed through their valid authorization cards
will, on balance , be better protected by a bargaining
'For the reasons set forth in the Decision and Order and the
Supplemental Decision , we find no merit in Respondent 's contention that
the Union did not have valid authorization cards from a majority of the
employees on October 7, 1966, when Respondent refused to bargain. Our
original finding, which we reaffirm , that the cards relied on to establish the
Union 's majority status were not obtained through misrepresentation, was
predicated on the rule in Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 144 NLRB 1268,
enforced 351 F.2d 917 (C.A. 6), and, as explicated in the Board 's prior
Decision and Order herein , approved by the Supreme Court in Gissel,
contrary to Respondent's contention , the booklet distributed to employees
by the Union and received in evidence as G C. Exh 6A, was fully
considered in making this finding
'As stated in fn . 2 of the original Decision and Order, Member Zagoria
would not find these statements of plant manager Rutter to be 8(axl); nor
would he rely on them in finding 8(aX5).
180 NLRB No. 43
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
order than by another election. We therefore remedy provided therefor in the Board's Decision
reaffirm the unfair labor practice findings and the and Order and Supplemental Decision.