Production Industries, Inc.

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