Sturgeon Electric Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 157 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

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