Stanley Works

STANLEY AIR TOOLS 553 Stanley Air Tools, Division of the Stanley Works and Teamsters Union Local No. 507, Affiliated With International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America Stanley Air Tools, Division of the Stanley Works and Teamsters Union Local No. 507, Affiliated With International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Cases 8-CA-4634 and 8-RC-6659 November 10, 1969 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On May 14, 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)(1) 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 authorization 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 Fourth Circuit remanded the instant proceeding to the Board for reconsideration in the light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Gissel. On August 15, 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, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed statements in support of their respective positions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its 1171 NLRB No 48 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 our initial Decision we found in agreement with the Trial Examiner 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 presently enjoyed privileges and benefits if the Union prevailed; seeking to have the employees revoke their authorization card and explaining to them how to do so; and inviting the employees to bypass the Union and deal directly with management concerning their complaints as they had done prior to the Union's campaign. 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 principles set forth in the Supreme Court's opinion in Gissel, we find 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 the 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 authorization 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 May 14, 1968. 179 NLRB No. 89