Production Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 706 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Production Industries , Inc. and International Union,
Allied Industrial Workers of America , AFL-CIO.
Cases 7-CA-6047 and 7-RC-7907
September 29, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On April 4, 1968, 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 in violation of Section
8(a)(l) and (5)of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, and ordering the Respondent to cease
and desist therefrom and 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 authorisation 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 Sixth Circuit remanded the instant proceeding to
the Board for reconsideration in the light of the
Supreme Courts opinion in Gissel. On August 6,
1969, the Board issued a Notice permitting the
parties to file statements of position with respect to
the application of Gissel to this proceeding.
Subsequently, Respondent and the General Counsel
filed statements in support of their respective
positions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(h) 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.
In its 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 economic
reprisals, including loss of employment if they
supported the Union: and granting or promising
economic benefits to induce employees to refrain
from supporting the Union. The Board also 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, by insisting upon
an election in the absence of a good-faith doubt and
employing the time thus gained to dissipate the
Union's majority, violated Section 8(a)(5), and
issued a bargaining order.
In view of the Supreme Court's opinion in Gissel,
we do not rely on our earlier finding that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to
bargain with the Union in 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 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 by traditional
remedies, and were of such a nature as to make a
fair election doubtful, if not impossible. Under these
circumstances, the purposes of the Act can better be
effectuated by reliance on the employees' desires as
expressed by signed authorisation cards than on the
results of a rerun 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
Based on the foregoing, and the entire record in
this case, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby affirms its Order issued in this proceeding on
April 4. 1968.
'170 NLRB No 128
178 NLRBNo.112