Vaca Valley Bus Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 641 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

VACA VALLEY BUS LINES 641
Horace Simmons d/b/a Vaca Valley Bus Lines and
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers Local Union No. 490, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers .of America. Case
20-C A-4293
November 19, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On June 17, 1968, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' finding that Respondent
had committed violations of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, within ,the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5), and ordering that
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action. Thereafter, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
remanded the instant proceeding to the Board for
reconsideration of the latter's finding that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and
its 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, June 16, 1969.
Subsequently, on August 1, 1969, the Board issued a
Notice2 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 August 15,
1969. The General Counsel filed a Statement of
Position The Respondent stated its position in a
letter addressed to the Associate Executive
Secretary.
The Board' has again reviewed the entire record,
including the General Counsel's Statement and the
Respondent's letter, and having reconsidered the
matter, affirms its original finding and order for the
reasons stated below
In its original decision, the Board found, in
agreement with the Trial Examiner, that
Respondent engaged in numerous violations of the
Act within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) at various
times material hereto, in that Respondent coercively
interrogated employees with respect to their union
activities and sympathies and the activities of other
employees; threatened to close down its operations if
its employees' selected a union; threatened to
discharge employees if they continued to engage in
171 NLRB No 179
'Not published in Board volumes
'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
union activities; gave employees the impression that
it was engaged in surveillance of their union
activities; stated that it would not deal with the
Union; and physically assaulted an employee for
engaging in union activities.
With respect to the Section 8(a)(5) allegation, the
Board found that on October 24, 1966, the day on
which the Union made its demand for recognition,
the Union represented a majority of employees in
the appropriate unit, as three of the five employees
in the unit had executed authorization cards. In view
of the serious unfair labor practices found, the
Board found that Respondent's refusal to bargain as
demanded violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act, and ordered Respondent to bargain with the
Union
Having carefully reconsidered this matter in light
of Gissel Packing Company, supra, we are of the
opinion that the Respondent's unfair labor practices,
committed contemporaneously with the Union's
organizational drive, are of such a substantial nature
as would tend to preclude the holding of a fair and
free election We have, therefore, concluded 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 the
Board's previous finding of Section 8(a)(5) violation
and its order' that Respondent bargain, upon
request, with the Union involved herein.
Respondent argues that in light of the fact that 3
years have passed since the commission of the unfair
labor practices and in view of the alleged fact that
only one of the original five employees in the, unit is
now in the employ of Respondent, any harmful
effect caused by the unfair labor practices has been
eliminated and, for this reason, a fair election can
now be conducted. We find no merit in this
contention. The Board's authority to issue a
bargaining order, though a great length of time has
passed since the commission of the unfair labor
practices and the Union no longer represents a
majority of the employees in the unit, has been
upheld by the Supreme Court on several occasions.
See N.L.R.B. v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736; Franks Bros.
Co. v. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 702, and N.L.R.B..v. P.
Lorillard Co , 314 U.S. 512. This authority was
reaffirmed by that Court ' in Gissel Packing
Company, supra, where it was observed that if the
Board in these circumstances "could enter only a
cease and desist order and direct an election. . . it
would in effect be rewarding the employer and
allowing him to profit from his own wrongful
refusal to bargain." In light of Respondent's serious
unfair labor practices tending to prevent a fair and
free election we believe that effectuation of statutory
policies requires the exercise of such authority in the
instant case.
Accordingly, we hereby affirm the Decision and
Order heretofore issued in this case.
179 NLRB No. 107