Quality Rubber Manufacturing Co., Inc.

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