Stanley Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 10, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 553 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

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