Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

152 Fifty-Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Boardorder and an affirmative order to reinstate certain employees andplace other employees on a preferential hiring list was just andproper to restore the status quo and protect the union's organizationalcampaign from irreparable injury. In the latter regard, thecourt observed that the Third Circuit's earlier decision in Eisenbergv. Wellington Hall Nursing Home" raises a "presumption"that ultimate Board-ordered reinstatement is unlikely to vindicatethe remedial purposes of the Act," and found inapposite the circuitcourt's subsequent decision in Kobe11 v. Suburban Lines," inwhich the court carved out an exception to that rule because thediscriminatees were members of an established, "small and intimate"bargaining unit.Another district court was confronted with an employer's allegedegregious response to a union's organizational campaign inGottfried v. Pillsbury Chemical & Oil Co." There, the courtfound reasonable cause to believe that, in response to a union'sorganizing activities at a plant in Michigan, the employer commencedan unlawful antiunion campaign, including the maintenanceof unlawfully broad no-solicitation and no-distributionrules, the interrogation of an employee about union activity, thelayoff of five employees to discourage their union activities orsupport, and the discriminatory termination of a portion of itsMichigan operation and relocating it to another plant in SouthCarolina. The court concluded that it would be just and properto restore the conditions to those that existed before the employer'salleged violations to assure that the Board could effectivelyexercise its ultimate remedial powers. The court therefore orderedthe employer to reinstate the laid-off employees, to restoreto the Michigan plant the operations relocated to South Carolina,to cease and desist from further such violations, and to post thecourt's order in conspicuous locations within the Michiganplant. 18In Pascarell v. Orit Corp./Sea Jet Trucking," a recently certifiedunion called the employees out on strike to protest the employer'salleged unfair labor practices." Several weeks later, theunion terminated the strike and made an unconditional offer toreturn to work on behalf of all strikers. The employer did notrespond to the offer. Approximately 90 former strikers presentedthemselves for work on the day specified by the union. The em-" 651 F.2d 902 (1981)."678 F.Supp. at 1167-1168.15 731 F.2d 1076 (1984), affg. 113 LRRM 2990 (W.D.Pa. 1983), discussed in 49 NLRB Ann. Rep.140-142 (1984).17 Civil No. 88-CV-73623 DT (E.D.Mich.)."The court further specified that the underlying complaint proceeding before the Board was to beexpedited, and that the employer could petition the court to allow a lawful layoff of employees and atransfer of work to South Carolina on the presentation of competent, documentary evidence establishmgthe purely economic predicate for such action.19 130 LRRM 2650 (D.N.J ), appeal pending No. 88-5453 (3d Cir.).20 For the purposes of the injunction proceeding, the respondent stipulated that the strike was anunfair labor practice strike.