Heck's Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 847 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

HECK'S, INC. 847
Heck 's, Inc. and Food Store Employees Union, Local
No. 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL -CIO. Case
9-CA-4185
March 27, 1970
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On May 24, 1968, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices within the meaning 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 to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act, including an order directing
the Respondent to bargain with the Union on
request.
Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded the
instant proceeding to the Board for reconsideration
of the finding that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act and the 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.
Subsequently, on August 27, 1969, the Board issued
a Notice to the parties, including the General
Counsel, that statements of position with respect to
the above-stated issue would be accepted for
consideration by the Board on or before September
10, 1969. The Respondent, the Union, and the
General Counsel filed Statements of Position 2
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
The Board has considered the statements of
position, and the entire record in this case, and, for
the reasons set forth below, has decided to affirm its
original findings and order.
In its original decision, the Board found, in
agreement with the Trial Examiner, that
Respondent violated the Act within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) by: coercively interrogating
employees as to their union activities; unlawfully
conducting a poll of employees; and creating the
impression of having engaged in surveillance of
employees' union activities. The Board concluded
that upon the review of all the relevant factors
herein, the unlawful conduct in this case was
amplified by, and was part of the companywide
antiunion policy, and its impact must be evaluated
in the context of the prior flagrant unlawful
practices.
With respect to the Section 8(a)(5) allegation, the
Board in agreement with the Trial Examiner, found
that the Union did in fact represent a majority of
the employees in that it had obtained valid
authorization cards from 19 of the 30 employees in
the unit, and concluded that Respondent's conduct
in this case was designed solely to avoid its
collective-bargaining obligation We, therefore,
issued a bargaining order as the appropriate remedy
for the 8(a)(5) violation.
Having carefully reconsidered this matter in light
of Gissel Packing Company, supra, we are of the
opinion that the Respondent, by engaging in the
foregoing conduct and refusing to recognize the
Union as majority representative of its employees,
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act Further,
we are persuaded that a bargaining order is justified
to remedy the Respondent's unfair labor practices,
for Respondent's pattern of conduct was part of its
companywide illegal labor relations policy as
reflected by its numerous statutory violations at its
other stores,' and in that context was of a kind
which would tend to have a lingering coercive effect
on the employees. These unfair labor practices are
of such a substantial nature as would preclude the
holding of a fair and free election We therefore,
conclude that the desires of Respondent's
employees, as expressed by the valid authorization
cards signed by a majority of the employees in the
unit, can be better protected, and statutory policies
effectuated, by affirming both the finding of a
Section 8(a)(5) violation and the issuance of a
bargaining order.
Accordingly, we hereby affirm the Decision and
Order heretofore issued in this case
1171 NLRB No 112
The Respondent ' s Statement of Position was a motion for oral
argument The only issue to be decided is the reconsideration of our 8(a)(5)
finding and bargaining order in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
N L R B v Gissel Packing Company , 395 U S 575 The Respondent's
motion for oral argument is hereby denied
'As more fully pointed out in our original decision these violations have
included polling similar to that in the instant case , threats, interrogations
and discriminatory discharges
181 NLRB No. 129