The opinion
KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Considering the deferential standard of review which governs this court’s examination of determinations of the National Labor Relations Board (the NLRB or the Board), I could join the majority, although with some reservations, in affirming the Board’s finding on this record that the respondent, Quality Aluminum Products, Inc. (Quality), engaged in the charged unfair labor practices. I am constrained to dissent, however, on the basis that the Board’s imposition of the extraordinary remedy of a bargaining order, rather than the more traditional relief of directing that a Board-supervised representation election be conducted, constituted an abuse of discretion unsupported by the instant record which should accordingly be denied enforcement by this court.
It should be noted at the outset that this court exercises less deference to the Board’s findings and scrutinizes its decision more closely when it has imposed the very harsh remedy of issuing a bargaining order without having conducted an election. See Exchange Bank v. NLRB, 732 F.2d 60, 63 (6th Cir.1984); NLRB v. Valley Plaza, Inc., 715 F.2d 237, 244 (6th Cir.1983); NLRB v. Rexair, Inc., 646 F.2d 249, 250 (6th Cir.1981). Such scrutiny of the record in the case sub judice fails to disclose that the effects of the employer’s violations were so pervasive or coercive that they precluded a fair and reliable representation election or otherwise necessitated a bargaining order.
Initially, it was undisputed by all parties that Quality’s business was highly seasonal in nature and traditionally evidenced a severe slump during the winter months. As a consequence, the general practice of the company was to lay off a proportionately large number of its relatively small work force in the months of October or November through the spring of the following year. The employees were acutely aware of this practice and that layoffs were imminent during the forthcoming slow season. The issue of seasonal layoffs was a factor which had motivated the undertaken union activity. The administrative law judge conceded that layoffs were inevitable at the facility in question at the time here in issue. In keeping with past practice, all six of the laid off employees were offered employment in the spring, four of whom accepted and two of whom declined for personal reasons. Moreover, with respect to the alleged anti-union statements, such expressions were attributable to a mid-level management employee whose actions were unknown to higher level company officials. Finally, the record reflects that the company and the union contemporaneously with the challenged layoffs entered into a stipu *798 lated, Board-supervised representation election, which was in fact conducted in January of 1983. In sum, the circumstances simply do not support the Board’s conclusion that the lingering effects of the rather unexceptional violations at issue herein, which occurred over four years ago, were so pervasive or coercive as to foreclose the conducting of a fair election or otherwise warrant a bargaining order. Accordingly, I would deny enforcement of that section of the Board’s order imposing a bargaining order rather than mandating an election.