Quality Rubber Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 711 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

QUALITY RUBBER MEG. CO. 711
Quality Rubber Manufacturing Company , Inc. and
United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO. Case
30-CA-780
September 30. 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS A\D ZAGORIA
On May 21, 1969, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the
Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1). (3), and (5)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and ordering Respondent to cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action.
Thereafter, upon its own motion, the Board has
decided to reconsider its finding that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and its order
requiring Respondent to bargain upon request with
the Union, in light of the Supreme Court's decision
in N.L R.B. v Gissel Packing Company. 395 U.S.
575. On August 6, 1969, the Board notified the
parties of its decision to reconsider, and invited
statements of position. Statements of position have
been received from the Employer, the Charging
Party, 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.
We have again reviewed the entire record
including the statements of position and, having
reconsidered the matter, affirm our original finding
and order in this respect for the reasons stated
below. In its original decision the Board found, in
agreement with the Trial Examiner, that
Respondent had engaged in numerous violations of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act at various times
material hereto, in that Respondent told employees
that another employee had been fired "Because
he's a union organizer"; coercively interrogated two
employees concerning their union membership, and
stated to then that Respondent did not want a
union in the plant; interrogated another employee as
to whether he had signed a union card; threatened
'176 NLRB No 7
employees that if the Union came in Respondent
would close the plant, and/or increase the
employees' work load and layoff current workers;
promised the employees a wage increase if they
would forego organization; threatened the wife of an
employee that the employee might have to be let go
"if he is the [Union] instigator''; and discharged l1
employees because of their union or concerted
activities
With respect to the Section 8(a)(5) allegation, the
Board found no merit in Respondent's contentions
that authorization cards signed by 11 employees,
found to have been unlawfully discharged, should
not be counted; that authorization cards are not an
appropriate method of determining majority status;
and that a Board election should be conducted. The
Board found that the Union represented a majority
of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit
and that Respondent's refusal to bargain was
violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1); and the Board
ordered Respondent, inter alia, to bargain upon
request with the Union.
Having carefully reconsidered this matter in the
light of the Supreme Court's decision in the Gissel
Packing Company case, supra, we arrive at the
same conclusions as we did before; however, in
doing so we do not rely, as a predicate for our
finding of a Section 8(a)(5) violation, on our earlier
subsidiary finding that Respondent acted in bad
faith in refusing to bargain with the Union as the
majority representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit . In our opinion, Respondent's
extensive violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3), as
summarized above, not only precluded the holding
of a fair election, but were of such pervasive and
aggravated character as to warrant the finding
which we made in our original decision, and which
we reiterate here, that an order directing the
Respondent to bargain with the Union is necessary
to repair their unlawful effects. The aforementioned
conduct has underminded the Union's majority, and
caused an election to be a less reliable guide to the
employees' free choice than the signed cards by
which they designated the Union to represent them.
We find, accordingly, that by refusing the Union's
request and engaging in the aforesaid unfair labor
practices, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
that an order requiring the Respondent to recognize
and bargain with the Union is appropriate to
remedy its violation of that section. as well as to
remedy the other unfair labor practices found.
Accordingly, we hereby reaffirm the Decision and
Order heretofore issued in this case.
178 NLRB No. 117