Noll Motors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 428 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Noll Motors, Inc. and District No. 9, International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO. Cases 17-CA-3126 and 17-RC-5251
December 16, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On December 27, 1967, the National Labor
Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' finding that Respondent
had committed violations of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5), and ordering that
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, including, inter alia, that
Respondent bargain with the Union. Thereafter, the
Board filed a petition for enforcement of the Order
with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit. 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, in which it laid down certain guidelines relative
to the propriety of finding violations of Section
8(a)(5) and issuing orders to bargain upon such
violation or violations of other sections of the Act.
After the Supreme Court's decision in Gissel, and
while the Board's application for enforcement of its
order was pending before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the Board moved the
court for an order remanding the case to the Board
for reconsideration in the light of Gissel, and on
August 13, 1969, the court granted the Board's
motion . On August 25, 1969, the Board informed
the parties that the Board would reconsider its
8(a)(5) finding and the bargaining order in this case
in the light of Gissel, and invited the parties to file
statements of position with respect to the
application of Gissel to this proceeding. Such
statements have been filed by the Respondent,2 the
Charging Party, and the General Counsel.
The Board3 has again reviewed the entire record
including the statements of position and, having
reconsidered the matter, affirms its original finding
and order for the reasons stated below.
In its original decision the Board found, in
agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by
interrogation, threats, and promises of benefit, in
that the Respondent called a meeting of its
1168 NLRB No. 137.
'The Respondent also filed a petition for oral argument Respondent's
request for oral argument is hereby denied , since the record and statements
of position adequately present the positions of the parties
'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
employees during which Company President Noll
questioned them individually about the nature of
their complaints and as to their reasons for wanting
a union, and stated that if the Union "got in," he
would have to operate on a strictly production basis
and he was sure that all the employees could not
make out on such an arrangement; thereafter,
another employee meeting was held at which Shop
Foreman Hawkins read a speech prepared by Noll,
which stated in part that unions make trouble, cause
strikes, and the Union could call a strike whether or
not employees could meet their house, car or tax
and mortgage payments; that unions elsewhere
caused loss of jobs, and that a plant where the
Union had won an election closed, whether it closed
because of the Union, he did not know;4 and during
the period between the two meetings, the garage
manager promised two employees "maybe he could
help them get what they wanted" if the Union did
not win the election.
With respect to the 8(a)(5) allegation, the Board
affirmed the Trial Examiner's finding that the
Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union
which represented a majority of Respondent's
employees in a unit stipulated to be appropriate,
when viewed against its contemporaneous 8(a)(1)
conduct, was not motivated by a good-faith doubt of
the Union's majority, and that, therefore, the
Respondent had committed a violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) for which a bargaining order remedy
was appropriate; that the Respondent's 8(a)(1)
conduct interfered with the election; and his
recommendation that the election be set aside.
In view of the Supreme Court's opinion in Gissel,
we do not reaffirm our earlier finding which
predicated the Respondent's violation of Section
8(a)(5) on the absence of a good-faith doubt of the
Union's majority status. We find, rather, that by
refusing to bargain with the Union and by engaging
in a series of unfair labor practices which were
calculated and tended to undermine the Union's
majority status, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1). The unfair labor practices were of
such a nature as to render doubtful that the coercive
effects of Respondent's unfair labor practices could
be eliminated by traditional remedies, so as to
ensure a fair election. We find, under these
circumstances, the purposes of the Act can better be
effectuated, and employee rights better protected, by
reliance on the employees' desires as expressed by
signed authorization cards than on the results of a
rerun election. Therefore, the bargaining order
previously issued is appropriate to remedy the
'Member Zagora did not adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion that
Noll's speech read by Hawkins, as quoted in the Trial Examiner's
Decision , violated Section 8 (a)(l) of the Act or interfered with the election
However, he does agree with his colleagues that a bargaining order is
appropriate in this case
180 NLRB No. 60
NOLL MOTORS, INC. 429
Respondent's violations of Section 8(a)(5), as well as Accordingly, we hereby reaffirm the Decision and
to remedy the other unfair labor practices found. Order heretofore issued in this case.