Mink-Dayton, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 243 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

MINK-DAYTON, INC. 243
Mink-Dayton , Inc. and Sheet Metal Workers' purposes of the Act in this case.'
International Association , Local 224, AFL-CIO. In its Decision and Order of June 30, 1967, the
Cases 9-CA-3950 and 9-RC-6701 Board found that the Respondent had violated
February 20, 1970
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On June 30, 1967, 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)(1) and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and ordering that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action.
On September 17, 1969, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the
Board's findings that the Respondent had engaged
in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,2
but remanded the case to the Board for further
findings with respect to the violations of Section
8(a)(5), consistent with the guidelines established by
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on June 16,
1969, in the Gissel case.3 In Gissel, the Supreme
Court affirmed the Board's use of authorization
cards as a basis for establishing a union's majority
status and issuing a bargaining order under certain
conditions.
On October 2, 1969, the Board issued a notice
granting all parties the opportunity to file
statements of position with respect to the matters
raised by the court's remand. Such statements were
filed by the Respondent, the Union, and the General
Counsel.
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 in
the light of Gissel, supra, and, for reasons set forth
below, affirms its original conclusion that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by
refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the majority representative of the employees, and
that a bargaining order is necessary to effectuate the
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by letters and a speech to
all the employees, threatening them with economic
loss if they selected the Union as their bargaining
representative. The threats were made by the
Respondent's president and by a supervisor. The
Board also found that the Union had valid
authorization cards from a majority of the
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit at the
time of its demand for recognition in March 1966,
and, therefore, was entitled to represent the
employees for collective-bargaining purposes. The
court approved all these findings.
We have reexamined the entire record, including
the statements of position, and are convinced that
the refusal-to-bargain finding and the bargaining
order are justified in this case within the meaning of
Gissel. The Respondent's campaign to defeat the
Union's organizational efforts consisted of various
acts of interference, restraint, and coercion involving
all the employees in the unit. These acts not only
interfered with the election held on May 13, 1966,
but also were sufficiently serious and extensive as to
make it unlikely that the lingering effects of the
Respondent's unlawful conduct could be neutralized
by resort to conventional remedies which would
produce a fair rerun election. Moreover, we believe
in the circumstances that restoration of the status
quo ante is required in order to vindicate employee
rights and prevent the Respondent from profiting
from its own unfair labor practices. We therefore
conclude, on balance, that the employee sentiment
as expressed through the authorization cards is a
more reliable measure of the employees' desires on
the issue of bargaining representation than a future
rerun election. Accordingly, we find that by refusing
to recognize and bargain with the Union and by
engaging in the aforesaid unfair labor practices, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act and that the policies of the Act will best be
effectuated by imposition of a bargaining order to
remedy such violations.
Under these circumstances, we reaffirm the
8(a)(5) finding made and the bargaining order issued
in the original Decision and Order.
166 NLRB No 79
'N L R B v Mink-Dayton , Inc, 416 F 2d 327
IN L R B v. Gisse! Packing Company, 395 U S 575
'The Union's request for oral argument is denied The Union 's position
on the remand issues has already been adequately presented
181 NLRB No. 40