R. D. Cortina Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 701 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

R. D. CORTINA CO., INC. 701
R. D. Cortina Co., Inc . and District 65, Retail,
Wholesale and Department Store Union,
-AFL-CIO. Case 2-CA-11167
November 24, 1969 -
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On April 11, 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 within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the -National Labor
Relations Act, as- amended,, and ordering the
Respondent to 'cease and desist, therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of ' the Act including an order directing
the Respondent to,bargain 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 authorization cards in
determining a union's' majority status and the
Board's power to issue 'a bargaining order based on
such a showing when'the employer's unfair labor
practice conduct tended to undermine the Union's
majority and impede the election process.
Thereafter, .the United ,States Court, .of Appeals
for the Second Circuit remanded the instant
proceeding to the Board for reconsideration in light
of the Supreme Court's opinion in Gissel. On
August 19, 1969, the Board 'issued a Notice
permitting the parties to file statements of position
with respect to the application of Gissel to this
'170 NLRB No 146
proceeding. Subsequently, Respondent and the
General Counsel filed statements'in support of their
respective positions.
-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'.
In its initial decision in agreement with the Trial
Examiner the' Board found that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by: coercively
interrogating its ' employees about their union
sympathies and activities; threatening to close its
business rather than recognize a union; promising
and granting economic benefits and changing its pay
[period from bi-weekly' to weekly in order to
abandon support of the Union; and discharging two
of its employees because of their union adherence.
The Board 'also found that at the time of its original
bargaining request the Uhion,represented a majority
of the Employer's employees' in an''appropriate unit
and was entitled to recognition as their exclusive
collective-bargaining , representative. The, Board
found a 'violation of Section 8(a)(5), and issued a
bargaining order:
Having carefully considered.the matter in view of
the Supreme Court's opinion in Gissel, we find that
the' Respondent's, violations of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) were of such a nature as to have lingering effects
which made the possibility of erasing these effects
and' ensuring a fair election by the use of traditional
remedies slight, if not impossible. Under these
circumstances, we find that the 'rights' of t_he
employees can` best be protected and the purposes of
the Act most fully, effectuated by reliance on the
employee sentiments expressed' by the authorization
cards. We affirm, inter alia , our Section 8(a'j(5)
finding.
Based on the foregoing and the entire record in
this case, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby affirms the Order issued in this proceeding
on April 11, 1968.
179 NLRB No. 120