Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 87certification petition was not a free and uncoerced expression ofemployee sentiment, but rather the tainted byproduct of the respondent'sefforts at thwarting their exercise of protected concertedactivities. Accordingly, the respondent was not privilegedto withdraw recognition from the union, and its doing so violatedSection 8(a)(5) and (1).Chairman Dotson, in dissent, pointed to the passage of severalyears since the commission of unfair labor practices as likelyhaving a diminishing effect on any coercion that may have beenfelt among the employees. He would have accorded great weightto the showing of support for the decertification petition as a reliableindicator of the union's loss of majority. He noted that althoughthe petition and the expression in its behalf both aroseduring the first year of the union's certification—when a union'smajority status cannot be challenged—the withdrawal of recognitionitself did not take place until after the union's majority wasdeemed rebuttable. The Chairman contended that, because therewas no evidence that the employees' disaffection with the unionhad undergone a change in the interim, the respondent should bepermitted to rely on their support for decertification as a basisfor believing that employees no longer supported the union.In Gulf States Mfrs.," a Board panel held that the employerviolated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to provide wage and benefitinformation regarding supervisors who performed unit work, butthe panel concluded that the employer did not violate Section8(a)(5) by its bargaining conduct, withdrawing recognition fromthe union, and unilaterally implementing postwithdrawal changesin wages, insurance benefits, working hours, and employee layoffs.The administrative law judge found that the withdrawal ofrecognition took place within a context of unremedied unfairlabor practices contributing to the union's loss of majority support,and that the employer was therefore not free to withdrawrecognition until the unfair labor practices were remedied and nofurther violations were committed. The unfair labor practices atissue were the employer's refusal to provide information in contractnegotiations, denial of union representation to an employeeat a disciplinary meeting, and the layoff of employees withoutgiving the union sufficient notice and an opportunity to bargain.Noting that the unfair labor practices occurred more than ayear and a half before the employer received a petition statingthat its employees no longer supported the union, the Boardpanel majority ruled that the unfair labor practices were not designedto cause rejection of the union and had no appreciableimpact on employees' disaffection with it. The panel majority observedthat the refusal to accord union representation affectedonly one employee; the layoffs resulted from compelling business74 287 NLRB No. 4 (Chairman Dotson and Member Cracraft; Member Johansen dissenting in part).