# G.E.S., Inc. D/B/A Big Star No. 185 v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 13, 1983 · 697 F.2d 157

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470128

## Case

- **Full name:** G.E.S., INC. D/B/A Big Star No. 185, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 13, 1983
- **Citations:** 697 F.2d 157; 112 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2393; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 31406
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kennedy
- **Judges:** Lively, Kennedy, Fairchild
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470128

## Opinion text

CORNELIA G. KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which enforces issuance of a Gissel bargaining order.
The majority quotes the only language employed by the administrative law judge to support his conclusion that issuance of a bargaining order was proper. The administrative law judge listed various violations of the Act and concluded that they “were sufficiently extensive and of sufficient gravity that the impact of [the Company’s] coercive conduct can easily be expected to make a fair election unlikely....” (at 159). That statement mirrors language 1 which this Court has found insufficient to support issuance of a Gissel bargaining order.
*160 The Board has failed to support its conclusion that a bargaining order is the only satisfactory remedy in the present case. The ALT simply recites his findings of the Company’s improper activities and then states that a cease-and-desist order could not cure these wrongs. There is no analysis of the residual impact or possible recurrence of these violations, nor explanation why a cease-and-desist order would fail to prevent possible recurrence. Nor is there any “ ‘analysis of the causal connection between the unfair labor practices and the conclusion that the election process was undermined’ ” to the point that a bargaining order must issue, (citations omitted) Given the lack of reasoning to support the Board’s conclusion, we decline to enforce the bargaining order. Instead, we believe that the purposes of the Act will be better served by the holding of a new election.
Rexair, Inc., 646 F.2d at 251 (emphasis added). Unlike United Services for the Handicapped v. N.L.R.B., 678 F.2d 661, 664-665 (6th Cir.1982), there were no discharges of employees here. Accordingly, I would deny that portion of the Board’s order which requires G.E.S., Inc. to bargain without an election.
. “I am of the opinion that the possibility of erasing the effects of the Company’s unfair labor practices and insuring a fair election by the use of the traditional remedy of a cease- and-desist order is slight, and that in this case the employees sentiment expressed through the authorization cards obtained by the Union would, on balance, be better protected by a bargaining order .... ” N.L.R.B. v. Rexair, Inc., 646 F.2d 249, 250 (6th Cir.1981).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470128. Public record. Not legal advice.