Steele Apparel Co., Inc.

218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Steele Apparel Company, Inc. and Southern Missouri-Arkansas District Council , International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Case 14-CA-4086 October 20, 1969 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On July 1, 1968, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order (172 NLRB No. 95) in the above-entitled case, modifying in one respect the Decision issued by the Trial Examiner on September 26, 1967, in all other respects adopting his findings and conclusions; and ordering the Respondent, Steele Apparel Company, Inc., to take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. The Board' thereby adopted, inter alia, the Trial Examiner's conclusions that, by refusing the Union's demand for recognition on August 17 and 18, 1966, the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and that the traditional remedy of the issuance of a bargaining order was appropriate to the violation so found On June 16, 1969, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in N L R B v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U S. 575, setting forth certain principles relative to the proper construction of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and the issuance of bargaining orders thereunder. On August 5, 1969, the Board issued a notice to all parties to this proceeding, stating its intention to reconsider its Decision and Order in the light of Gissel Packing Company, and giving the parties leave to file statements of position with respect to such reconsideration. The Charging Party and Counsel for the General Counsel have now filed statements of position. We have carefully measured the record in this case against the criteria outlined by the Supreme Court. We reaffirm our previous finding that the Respondent committed a violation of Section 8(a)(5) warranting the issuance of a bargaining order. By unlawfully laying off two employees in the bargaining unit, by discriminatorily discharging another, by making threats of discharge and plant closure, and by engaging in the other violations of Section 8(a)(1) previously found, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices of such an extensive and pervasive character as to require the issuance of a bargaining order, even in the absence of a Section 8(a)(5) violation. The Sinclair Company v. N L R B , 395 U.S. 575. Furthermore, as the General Counsel points out, the unfair labor practices shown by this record warrant a finding that the possibility of having a fair election has been effectively precluded by such conduct, and that reliance upon the sentiment of the employees as expressed by their signing of authorization cards will best effectuate the policies of the Act. Accordingly, we reaffirm the findings, conclusions, and order previously issued in this case. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the Decision and Order issued in this case on July 1, 1968, be, and it hereby is, affirmed. '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 179 NLRB No. 40,