finding no adequate justification for Gissel order because “the Board did not adequately consider changes in management and employee turnover at the Company since the time of the election”
How later courts described this case
- finding no adequate justification for Gissel order because “the Board did not adequately consider changes in management and employee turnover at the Company since the time of the election”
- refusing to enforce bargaining order where only ten percent of the employees were directly affected by the employer's unfair labor practices
- declining to enforce bargaining order where “no reasoned justification therefor appearfed] in the Board’s order”
- declining to enforce bargaining order where "no reasoned justification therefor appear[ed] in the Board's order"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
This case must be remanded for further consideration, because the Board has thus far failed to justify a bargaining order remedy with the specific findings required by Avecor, Inc. v. NLRB, 931 F.2d 924, 934 (D.C.Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 912 , 116 L.Ed.2d 812 (1992). On remand, the Board must specifically address three issues: (1) whether Chairman Riggs’ statements violated the Act, and, if so, whether these violations support a remedial bargaining order; (2) why statements about possible plant closure made by supervisors Rush, Tims, Sr., Clyde, Pyle, and Berkley violated the Act, and, if they did, why these statements were sufficiently pervasive to justify a remedial bargaining order; and (3) whether the changes in management and employee turnover that have occurred since the occurrence of the violations have made a bargaining order unnecessary.
I concur only in the judgment of the court remanding this case for further consideration.