Opinion ID: 712067
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gissel bargaining orders.

Text: 50 A bargaining order can be an acceptable response to a series of unfair labor practices which have made the holding of a fair election unlikely.... Gissel, 395 U.S. at 610, 89 S.Ct. at 1938. But such an order is only an appropriate remedy for those practices [that] ... are of 'such a nature that their coercive effects cannot be eliminated by the application of traditional remedies, with the result that a fair and reliable election cannot be had.'  Id. at 614, 89 S.Ct. at 1940 (quoting NLRB v. S.S. Logan Packing Co., 386 F.2d 562, 570 (4th Cir.1967)). 51 In this circuit, [a]n election, not a bargaining order remains the preferred remedy. J.L.M., Inc. v. NLRB, 31 F.3d 79, 83 (2d Cir.1994). [A] bargaining order is a rare remedy warranted only when it is clearly established that traditional remedies cannot eliminate the effects of the employer's past unfair labor practices. Id. Our review of a bargaining order is for abuse of discretion. America's Best Quality Coatings Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 44 F.3d 516, 520 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2609, 132 L.Ed.2d 853 (1995). 52 In NLRB v. Windsor Industries, Inc., 730 F.2d 860 (2d Cir.1984), we analyzed the framework erected by Gissel and concluded that bargaining orders are proper remedies in two kinds of cases: 53 The Court first identified those cases, described in Gissel as exceptional, which were marked by 'outrageous' and 'pervasive' unfair labor practices. In these cases an order to bargain might issue irrespective of whether the union had ever demonstrated majority support. 54 Gissel also recognized a second tier of less extraordinary cases marked by less pervasive practices which nonetheless still have the tendency to undermine majority strength and impede the election processes, and which might therefore call for the issuance by the Board of a bargaining order. In fashioning remedies in those cases, involving a lesser showing of employer misconduct, the Board can properly take into consideration the extensiveness of an employer's unfair practices in terms of their past effect on election conditions and the likelihood of their recurrence in the future. The Court then stated that if the Board finds the possibility of erasing the effects of past practices and of ensuring a fair election (or a fair rerun) by the use of traditional remedies, though present, is slight and that employee sentiment once expressed through cards would, on balance, be better protected by a bargaining order, then such an order should issue.... 55 Id. at 865 (quoting Gissel, 395 U.S. at 614-15, 89 S.Ct. at 1940-41). 56 The Gissel category of exceptional misconduct is limited to what are termed hallmark violations. NLRB v. Chester Valley, Inc., 652 F.2d 263, 272 (2d Cir.1981). Such violations include closing of a plant or threats of closure or loss of employment, granting of benefits to employees, or reassignment, demotion or discharge of union adherents. Id. The only violations by Kinney that potentially amount to exceptional misconduct are the threat of plant closure and the threat to discharge Woods and Les McClure. The second Gissel category applies to a group of more pallid unfair labor practices such as interrogation of employees, promises of benefits, expressions of anti-union resolve, or threats of decreased benefits.... Id. Such lesser misconduct will not support a bargaining order absent serious and long-lasting untoward effects on employees. Id. Most of the unfair labor practices cited by the NLRB in this case--from the interrogation of employees to the marginally more generous coffee policy--are of this lesser variety. 57