G. P. D., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 16, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 184 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. P. D., Inc . and Local 337 , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind. Case
7-CA-5321
October 16, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On April 3, 1967, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order,' finding that the
Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5)
of the Act, and ordering the Respondent to cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action
On January 17, 1969, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a Decision,
enforcing the Board's Order in part, but denying
enforcement and remanding as to the balance.' The
Court enforced in full the parts of the Order relating
to the 8(a)(3) violations (the discriminatory
discharges of Joseph Paladino and Michael Zamm,
and the refusal to reinstate on application unfair
labor practice strikers George Morris and Leonard
W Andrus), and also enforced the 8(a)(1) Order
based on certain of the violations (threats of
discharge). But the Court denied enforcement of the
parts of the Order relating to the 8(a)(5) violation,
on the ground the Union did not offer the
Respondent proof of its card majority (seven cards
in an eight-employee unit), and the Respondent's
refusal to bargain without an election was thus
lawfully predicated on its good-faith doubt
concerning the Union's majority.
At the same time, the Court recognized that a
bargaining order might be an appropriate remedy
for the Respondent's unfair labor practices, and it
accordingly remanded the case to the Board for
further consideration of the proper remedial order
On May 19, 1969, the Board issued and served on
the parties a Notice that the parties file statements
of position with respect to the issues remanded by
the Court. The Respondent and the General Counsel
filed statements pursuant to the Notice
'163 NLRB 830
'G P D, Inc v NLRB,406F2d26
On June 16, 1969, the United States Supreme
Court issued its opinion in N L R B v Gissel
Packing Conipani' , 395 U S. 575, in which it laid
down certain guidelines relative to the propriety of
bargaining orders to remedy violations of the Act
On August 14, 1969, the Board issued a
Supplemental Notice that , having decided to
reconsider the bargaining order in the light of
Gissel, it requested that the parties file statements of
position with respect thereto The Respondent, the
Union, and the General Counsel filed statements
pursuant to the Supplemental Notice
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act , as amended, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel.
The Board having reviewed the entire record
pursuant to the Court's remand and having
considered the parties ' statements filed in response
to the Board ' s Notice and Supplemental Notice
herein makes the following additional findings and
conclusions
In the instant case the evidence indicates, as the
Court of Appeals stated in its Decision , that seven
out of the eight unit employees signed valid
authorization cards designating the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative The evidence
further indicates , as Circuit Judge Edwards
expressly pointed out in his separate opinion, that
the Respondent thereupon engaged in gross unfair
labor practices , including unlawful threats to and the
discriminatory firing of four of the eight employees
in the unit In our opinion these unfair labor
practices were of such an egregious and pervasive
character as to require that even in the absence of
an 8(a )( 5) violation , and despite the subsequent
employee turnover , a bargaining order to undo their
unlawful effects' in a manner sufficient to effectuate
the policies of the Act. Moreover , we are of the
opinion, and find the possibility of erasing the
coercive effects of these unfair labor practices and
ensuring a fair election by the use of traditional
remedies even if present , is so slight as to lead to
the conclusion that the employee sentiment
expressed through the authorization cards would on
balance be better protected by the bargaining order
heretofore issued as paragraph 2(a) of our Order.
We accordingly reaffirm , and request the Court to
enforce our bargaining order as heretofore issued.
'N L R B v Gissel Packing Company. supra at 615 (Sinclair Co, No
585)
179 NLRB No. 31