U.S. Sonics Corp.

172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD U.S. Sonics Corporation and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-3454. June 26, 1963 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On February 5, 1962, the Board issued its Decision and Order in this case,i finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1), 8(a) (3), and 8(a) (5) of the Act. The Board ordered the Respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices, and to take certain affirma- tive action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. On January 31, 1963, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion in which the court enforced the Board's Order to the extent that it required recognition and good-faith bar- gaining with the Union, but vacated the balance of the Order and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings not incon- sistent with the court's opinion 2 On March 27, 1963, the Board issued an order in which it afforded the parties the opportunity to file briefs with respect to the issues en- compassed by the remand. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Gen- eral Counsel filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. In its opinion, the court held that, as the Respondent would have been justified in believing that an impasse had been reached, and as its offers did not exceed the bounds of benefits previously offered to the Union, its acts, beginning April 8, 1961, and consisting of meeting with employees and making wage offers to them, were not violative of the Act. Accordingly, to the extent that these activities were relied upon by the Board, the court denied enforcement of the Board's order. As the Board specifically found that the Respondent's unilateral offers beginning April 8, 1961, constituted independent 8 (a) (1) viola- tions, and as the Board in finding the 8(a) (3) violations, relied on the Respondent's unilateral offers as evidence of antiunion bias, the Board's original Decision and Order insofar as it relates to 8(a) (1) and (3) allegations, must now be reappraised in the light of the court's decision. The unilateral offers made by the Respondent having been found by the court not to constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act,' we find that these offers also do not constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (1). Also contrary to the Trial Examiner, as we cannot 1135 NLRB 818. s N L.R B. v. U.S. Sonics Corporation, 312 F. 2d 610. 3The Board's finding of an 8(a)(5) violation beginning as of April 19, 1962, was affirmed by the court. 143 NLRB No. 27. U.S. SONICS CORPORATION 173 now find that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike on April 15, we do not find that Respondent 's advising strikers on that date that they would be permanently replaced unless they returned to work, constitutes a violation of Section 8(a) (1). We affirm the other 8(a) (1) violations found in our original Decision and Order. We also affirm our previous conclusion that Respondent discrimina- torily discharged Antonio Alvarez , Paul Barrett, Sheila Browning, Lillian Henderson, Ann Le Voy, Eugene McMahon, and Josephine Pacheco in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. In so finding, we rely on the entire record evidence, including the evidence cited in the Intermediate Report, except that we do not rely on the above- mentioned conduct of Respondent beginning April 8, 1961. We especially note the following : President Rolm, at one point in his testimony , said that the decision to reduce the working force was made in March ; yet at another point he admitted that "during the period of the month before the strike" the Respondent did "a consid- erable amount of hiring ." Although both Rolm and Manager Miller contended that the layoffs were a necessary economic reduction in force, company records show that after April 25 and up to mid-July more than 50 new employees were hired. Moreover, although Miller testified generally that he made the ultimate selection of individuals to be laid off, following recommendations by department supervisors, and specifically testified that he relied "heavily" upon the "recom- mendation" of Supervisor Bartfield in selecting three of the discharged employees, Bartfield, a witness for Respondent, definitely denied that she had received any instructions from Miller regarding a reduction in force and also denied that she had been present at any prelayoff conferences of supervisors. In addition, as evidence of union animus, we further note that the Respondent withdrew recognition from the Union during the certifi- cation year ; offered to conduct an election to determine whether employees desired an "inside" or an "outside" union ; urged upon employees the advantages of an "inside" union over the Charging Union and expressed the desire for a vote ; distributed a unilateral agreement ; and, on the day after the discharges took place, conducted an election among employees to determine their choice of a company union, the Charging Union , or no union. Accordingly , we conclude that, even excluding the evidence of uni- lateral offers made by Respondent , the record amply shows union animus on the part of the Respondent , and we affirm our original 8(a) (3) finding. We hereby affirm our original Order and notice in this case except to the extent that they refer to Respondent 's acts of advising strikers they will be permanently replaced unless they return to work, and offering wage increases to strikers if they return to work.