Sturgeon Electric Co., Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 13, 1970181 N.L.R.B. 157 (N.L.R.B. 1970) Copy Citation STURGEON ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. Sturgeon Electric Company, Inc. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and its District Lodge 86, AFL-CIO and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 111, Party to the Contract. Case 27-CA-2117 February 13, 1970 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On June 28, 1967, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in this proceeding,' finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Board ordered Respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and to take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. On December 4, 1969, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued its Decision2 in which it affirmed the Board's finding that Respondent had unlawfully sponsored and assisted the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 111 (IBEW), and had unlawfully refused to bargain with International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and its District Lodge 86, AFL-CIO (IAM). The court, however, remanded this proceeding to the Board for reconsideration in the light of the Supreme Court's opinion in N.L.R B. v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575. Thereafter, Respondent, on December 15, 1969, filed a motion to reopen the record in this proceeding for the purpose of taking testimony on the issues raised by application of the Gissel case to the instant case. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. In Gissel, the Supreme Court affirmed 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. In its initial decision 166 NLRB No. 28 157 the Board found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) "by its assistance to the IBEW during the organizational activities of the Machinist Union, particularly following receipt of the IAM's request for recognition." The Board concluded that "Respondent in bad faith declined to recognize the IAM in order to destroy its majority status and to substitute the IBEW as the bargaining representative of its garage employees . . . at a time when it was under a statutory duty to bargain with the IAM." The Board has now reviewed de novo the entire record in this proceeding in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Gissel, and finds it unnecessary to rely upon Respondent's lack of good faith as grounds for an unlawful refusal to bargain. Rather, we find that by refusing to bargain with IAM after being presented with proof of IAM's majority status, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. As the Board found in its initial decision, and as the circuit court agreed, Respondent was not faced with rival claims, as it had unlawfully sponsored and assisted the IBEW in obtaining authorization cards. The Board ordered Respondent to withdraw and withhold recognition from IBEW, to reimburse employees the dues they had paid to IBEW, and to bargain with IAM. We are of the opinion that the coercive effects of Respondent's unfair labor practices cannot be dispelled by the imposition of a lesser remedy. Those unfair labor practices made a fair election improbable, and we find that the purposes of the Act can better be effectuated, and employee sentiment as expressed through their signing of IAM authorization cards prior to Respondent's unlawful assistance of IBEW better protected,' by the issuance of an order to bargain with IAM.4 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER Based on the foregoing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby affirms its order in this proceeding issued on June 28, 1967. In the circumstances of this entire proceeding, the Board wishes to make it clear that Respondent's actions following our initial order did not amount to compliance with that order. We hereby affirmatively order Respondent to once again post notices as provided in our initial order, and to bargain with International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and its District Lodge 86, AFL-CIO. 'Moreover , Respondent has admittedly continued to accord recognition to IBEW despite our outstanding order to bargain with IAM 'Respondent 's motion to reopen the record in this proceeding is hereby denied Assuming , arguendo, that all facts that Respondent would show ^N L R B v Sturgeon Electric Co, Inc, 419 F 2d 51 (C A 10) are true, they do not persuade us to rule otherwise in this proceeding 181 NLRB No. 30 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation