Kane Bag Supply Co.

29 0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Jerome T. Kane d/b/a Kane Bag Supply Company and Upper South Department, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO. Case 5-CA-3818 October 23, 1969 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On December 10, 1968, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order' in the above-entitled case, modifying in certain respects the Decision issued by the Trial Examiner on June 3, 1968; in all other respects adopting his findings and conclusions; and ordering the Respondent, Jerome T. Kane d/b/a Kane Bag Supply Company, Baltimore, Maryland, to take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with certain modifications. Among the conclusions of the Trial Examiner adopted by the Board's Decision were his related determinations that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by its refusal to bargain with Upper South Department, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, on and after May 8, 1967, and that even if a violation of Section 8(a)(5) were not found, the Respondent's other unfair labor practices were of such a nature as to warrant issuance of a bargaining order. In reaching the latter conclusion, the Trial Examiner stated: In view of the numerous and serious unfair labor practices of the Respondent which quite apparently has [sic] resulted in the dissipation of the Union's majority and the destruction of the conditions for a free and fair election in which the Union's strength could be reliably tested , I would recommend that the Respondent be directed to bargain with the Union to remedy these unfair labor practices , even if I had not found that his conduct also violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act [footnote citations omitted]. On August 5, 1969 , the Board ' issued a notice to all parties to this proceeding , in which it indicated an intention to reconsider its Decision and Order in the present case in the light of the opinion of the Supreme Court in N L R B v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575. The General Counsel and the Respondent have filed statements of position in response to the notice. After due consideration of the record , we reaffirm our agreement with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent' s unfair labor practices were of such an extensive and pervasive character that, even in the absence of an 8(a)(5) violation , a bargaining order would be necessary to repair the effect of those unlawful practices . Further, as the General Counsel points out, the unfair labor practices shown by this record warrant a finding that the possibility of erasing their lingering coercive effects by the use of traditional remedies is slight, and that, on balance, the purposes of the Act would be better effectuated by reliance on the employee sentiment expressed by the signing of authorization cards rather than on the results of an election. 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 December 10, 1968, be, and it hereby is, affirmed. 1173 NLRB No 180 '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. 51