Renner Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 642 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Renner Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.
and Local Union No. 5, United Association of
Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing &
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO. Cases 5-CA-3897 and
5-RC-6069
November 19, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On August 13, 1968, the National Labor
Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the
Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
ordering, inter alia , Respondent to bargain with the
Union as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the unit found appropriate. Thereafter,
on July 14, 1969, upon the motion of the parties, the
case was remanded by the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in order
that the Board might reconsider, in light of the
Supreme Court's decision in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel
Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575, its finding that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and
its order requiring the Respondent to bargain with
the Union. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the
Respondent, and the Charging Party filed
Statements of Position on the remanded case
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 entire record,
including the Statements of Position, and affirms its
original finding and order for the reasons stated
below.
In our original decision we found, in agreement
with the Trial Examiner, that Respondent had
engaged in a' number of violations of Section 8(a)(l )
of the Act after learning of the Union's interest in
representing the , employees Thus, through
Superintendent Fries and President Renner,
employees were questioned about "what the guys
wanted," coupled with the comment that the payrate
would be lowered if the Union came in, it was
observed that the ' coffee break ' 'would be
discontinued if the Union came in; the rumor was
circulated that there would be a loss of business
from local contractors if the Union came in; it was
indicated that if the Union was successful,
transportation to out-of-town jobs would no longer
be furnished; employees were told that Respondent
had "something stewing in the pot" for them but
1172 NLRB No 172
could not discuss it with them because of the
Union's presence on the scene; and employees were
told that if the Union came in with higher wages
Respondent could no longer provide so-called "shop
time" during slack periods in the winter months.
With respect to the 8(a)(5) allegation, the Board,
in agreement with the Trial Examiner, found that
the Union had obtained valid authorization cards
from a majority of the employees and that
Respondent's refusal to bargain was violative of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. We, therefore, issued a
bargaining order.
Insofar as is relevant here, the Supreme Court in
Gissel, supra, in stating the general principles
applicable to the issuance of bargaining orders,
agreed that the Board has authority to issue a
bargaining order to redress unfair labor practices
"so coercive that, even in the absence of a Section
8(a)(5) violation, a bargaining order would have
been necessary to repair the unlawful effect of those
[unfair labor practices]."2 Additionally, the Court
approved the Board's authority to issue a bargaining
order "... in less extraordinary cases marked by less
pervasive practices which nonetheless still have the
tendency to undermine majority strength and
impede the election processes." In the latter
situation, the Board is to examine the nature and
extent of the employer's unlawful conduct and
ascertain the likelihood that use of traditional
remedies would have ensured a fair election. In
applying these general principles to the cases before
it, the Court remanded three of them to the-Board
for a determination as to "[whether] even though
traditional remedies might be able to ensure a fair
election 'there was insufficient indication that an'
election (or a rerun . . . ) would definitely be a more
reliable test of the employee's desires than the card
count taken before the unfair labor practices
occurred."3
Having carefully reconsidered the instant matter,
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 that violation, for
Respondent's pattern of unlawful conduct was of
such a nature as to have a lingering effect and use
of traditional remedies here would have been
unlikely to ensure 'a fair or coercion-free rerun
election.4 We are persuaded that the cards validly
executed by a majority of the employees in the unit
represent a more reliable expression of the
employees' choice in this case, and that the policies
of the Act will be effectuated by the imposition of a
bargaining order. Accordingly, we shall reaffirm the
'NLRB v Gissel. supra at 615
'ld at 616
'In our original decision we approved the Trial Examiner's
179 NLRB No. 103
RENNER PLUMBING, HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC.
findings and remedy provided in the original
Decision and Order herein.'
Accordingly, we hereby 'reaffirm the Order
heretofore issued in this case.
643
recommendation that the representation election held in Case 5-RC-6069
be set aside because the described conduct of Respondent interfered with
the exercise of free choice by the employees
'General Stencils, Inc, 178 NLRB No 18, World Carpets, Inc, 176
NLRB No 138
i