Opinion ID: 560347
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impact of employer's actions

Text: 70 Avecor also argues that it was not responsible for the demise of the card majority. It notes that another court vacated a bargaining order where the union's loss of majority support occurred through no activity by the employer and prior to any employer violations. Struthers-Dunn, Inc. v. NLRB, 574 F.2d 796, 802 (3d Cir.1978). 71 Here, however, Avecor's unfair practices were well underway before the union lost its majority status. With both disputed employees in the bargaining unit, the union had a card majority from April 27 to 28. On or before April 28, Ingram told Hamby that the plant would close if it was unionized, Millsaps told Hamby that the company might raise the pay of machine operators to keep the union out, Willoughby fired Tidwell, and Willoughby interrogated Martin about his union views. Even if these actions did not cause Coley to withdraw his card--the April 28 event that deprived the union of its majority--they may well have kept other employees from signing cards, and thereby prevented the union from increasing its majority prior to April 28 or from regaining it thereafter. If Byrum or McWaters is ultimately excluded from the unit, the union regained its card majority between May 5 and 15. Additional unfair labor practices, including Klarich's and Willoughby's coercive remarks to the assembled employees, occurred during this period. These practices meet the minimum requirements of the second St. Francis test: Taken together, they will support an inference that Avecor's actions had the tendency to undermine majority strength and impede the election process. 729 F.2d at 854. 72