Case Name: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. QUALITY ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, INC., Respondent, Cross-Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1987-03-20
Citations: 813 F.2d 795
Docket Number: Nos. 86-5268, 86-5343
Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. QUALITY ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, INC., Respondent, Cross-Petitioner.
Judges: Before ENGEL and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges; and SPIEGEL, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 813
Pages: 795–798

Head Matter:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. QUALITY ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, INC., Respondent, Cross-Petitioner.
Nos. 86-5268, 86-5343.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 29, 1987.
Decided March 20, 1987.
Richard Masters, argued, Hollis L. Searcy, Amshoff and Amshoff, Louisville, Ky., for respondent, cross-petitioner.
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate General Counsel N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Helen Morgan, David Fleischer, argued, Emil C. Farkas, Director, Region 9, NLRB, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner, cross-respondent.
Before ENGEL and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges; and SPIEGEL, District Judge.
The Honorable S. Arthur Spiegel, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the court on cross-petitions to review and enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board determining that Quality Aluminum Products had violated sections 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), 158(a)(3) and 158(a)(5). The Board's opinion is reported at 278 N.L.R.B. No. 49.
Quality Aluminum is a manufacturer and distributor of windows, doors, awnings, and gutters. Its business is seasonal, and normally requires employee layoffs during the winter. In November 1982, some employees of Quality Aluminum signed union authorization cards and wore buttons favoring a union. The Board alleges that from the date these buttons were worn, and continuing for approximately one week, Quality Aluminum threatened the discharge of workers and closure of the plant because the employees had engaged in union activities, and gave the impression of surveillance of such activities, all allegedly in violation of section 8(a)(1), made discriminatory layoffs for engaging in union activities, in violation of sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3), and refused to bargain, contrary to section 8(a)(5). There is no dispute regarding which employees were laid off.
The administrative law judge found that all the laid off employees were union supporters. He found a violation of section 8(a)(1) because the employees who openly supported the union were swiftly laid off. Although in years past layoffs had been made, and might have been made in 1982 at some point, the normal procedures for making layoffs were not complied with that year. The administrative law judge ordered reinstatement and backpay, and a bargaining order pursuant to NLRB v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969), not on the grounds that the unfair labor practices in this case were pervasive, but that the company's actions had a tendency to undermine the union's majority strength and impede the election process. The Board modified the administrative law judge's order concerning reinstatement because of the reemployment of some of the employees, and based the Gissel bargaining order not on the administrative law judge's rationale, but on the ground that these violations were extensive and pervasive, and would leave a lingering coercive effect on the employees' willingness to exercise their protected rights.
On appeal, Quality Aluminum challenges the Board's findings that the employees were laid off because of their union activities, that they were threatened, and that the majority of the employees had designated the union to be their collective bargaining representative, as well as the propriety of the Board's Gissel bargaining order.
Upon consideration, the court is of the opinion that substantial evidence supports the finding of the administrative law judge as modified by the decision of the Board. We further conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in determining that a bargaining order was the appropriate remedy under NLRB v. Gissel Packing Company, supra.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the decision of the Board above cited, the order of the Board is enforced, and the petition of the respondent is DENIED.