G. P. D., Inc.

184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD G. P. D., Inc. and Local 337, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind. Case 7-CA-5321 October 16, 1969 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On April 3, 1967, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order,' finding that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the Act, and ordering the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action On January 17, 1969, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a Decision, enforcing the Board's Order in part, but denying enforcement and remanding as to the balance.' The Court enforced in full the parts of the Order relating to the 8(a)(3) violations (the discriminatory discharges of Joseph Paladino and Michael Zamm, and the refusal to reinstate on application unfair labor practice strikers George Morris and Leonard W Andrus), and also enforced the 8(a)(1) Order based on certain of the violations (threats of discharge). But the Court denied enforcement of the parts of the Order relating to the 8(a)(5) violation, on the ground the Union did not offer the Respondent proof of its card majority (seven cards in an eight-employee unit), and the Respondent's refusal to bargain without an election was thus lawfully predicated on its good-faith doubt concerning the Union's majority. At the same time, the Court recognized that a bargaining order might be an appropriate remedy for the Respondent's unfair labor practices, and it accordingly remanded the case to the Board for further consideration of the proper remedial order On May 19, 1969, the Board issued and served on the parties a Notice that the parties file statements of position with respect to the issues remanded by the Court. The Respondent and the General Counsel filed statements pursuant to the Notice '163 NLRB 830 'G P D, Inc v NLRB,406F2d26 On June 16, 1969, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in N L R B v Gissel Packing Conipani' , 395 U S. 575, in which it laid down certain guidelines relative to the propriety of bargaining orders to remedy violations of the Act On August 14, 1969, the Board issued a Supplemental Notice that , having decided to reconsider the bargaining order in the light of Gissel, it requested that the parties file statements of position with respect thereto The Respondent, the Union, and the General Counsel filed statements pursuant to the Supplemental Notice Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act , as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board having reviewed the entire record pursuant to the Court's remand and having considered the parties' statements filed in response to the Board' s Notice and Supplemental Notice herein makes the following additional findings and conclusions In the instant case the evidence indicates, as the Court of Appeals stated in its Decision , that seven out of the eight unit employees signed valid authorization cards designating the Union as their collective-bargaining representative The evidence further indicates , as Circuit Judge Edwards expressly pointed out in his separate opinion, that the Respondent thereupon engaged in gross unfair labor practices , including unlawful threats to and the discriminatory firing of four of the eight employees in the unit In our opinion these unfair labor practices were of such an egregious and pervasive character as to require that even in the absence of an 8(a)(5) violation, and despite the subsequent employee turnover , a bargaining order to undo their unlawful effects' in a manner sufficient to effectuate the policies of the Act. Moreover , we are of the opinion, and find the possibility of erasing the coercive effects of these unfair labor practices and ensuring a fair election by the use of traditional remedies even if present , is so slight as to lead to the conclusion that the employee sentiment expressed through the authorization cards would on balance be better protected by the bargaining order heretofore issued as paragraph 2(a) of our Order. We accordingly reaffirm , and request the Court to enforce our bargaining order as heretofore issued. 'N L R B v Gissel Packing Company. supra at 615 (Sinclair Co, No 585) 179 NLRB No. 31