Opinion ID: 1838958
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The WERC remedial order.

Text: The final issue is whether or not WERC's remedial order was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. Sec. 111.07 (4), Stats., provides in part that: ... Final orders may... require him [a person found guilty of an unfair labor practice] to take such affirmative action, including reinstatement of employes with or without pay, as the board may deem proper. ... The reasonableness of the order must be viewed in the light of the finding by the WERC that respondent was guilty of an unfair labor practice in refusing to bargain. The order of the WERC should be affirmed unless the respondent can show that the order has no tendency to effectuate the purposes of the Employment Peace Act. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board v. Algoma Plywood & Veneer Co. (1948), 252 Wis. 549, 32 N. W. 2d 417, affirmed, 336 U. S. 301, 69 Sup. Ct. 584, 93 L. Ed. 691. The precise remedy chosen here, placement of the displaced employees on a preferential hire list and an order to bargain with the union with respect to other aspects of the displacement, has been sustained by courts of appeal. Cooper Thermometer Co., supra; NLRB v. Rapid Bindery, Inc. (2d Cir. 1961), 293 Fed. 2d 170. The labor board has consistently affirmed the preferential hire remedy in similar circumstances, a failure to negotiate an economically motivated decision to eliminate jobs. Plymouth Industries, Inc. (1969), 177 NLRB No. 71; Royal Plating & Polishing Co., supra ; Drapery Mfg. Co. (1968), 170 NLRB No. 199; and McGregor Printing Corp. (1967), 163 NLRB 938. An attitude of deference by courts to administrative agencies is well established. This principle was most recently affirmed in NLRB v. Drapery Mfg. Co. (8th Cir. 1970), 425 Fed. 2d 1026, 1028, where the court stated: ... It is an established principle that a Board order `should stand unless it can be shown that the order is a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the Act.' Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. NLRB, 319 U. S. 533, 540, 63 Sup. Ct. 1214, 1218, 87 L. Ed. 1568 (1943). The rationale for the rule is that the Board, as an administrative agency, `must draw on enlightenment gained from experience' in fashioning its remedies, NLRB v. Seven-Up Co., 344 U. S. 344, 73 S. Ct. 287 (1953).... We think the WERC had authority to make the remedial order in this case. However, the order must be modified in accordance with this opinion. Such modification requires the deletion of paragraph 2 (a) [1] of the WERC order and a modification of paragraph 2 (b) (2), [2] so as to delete any reference to collective bargaining with respect to the respondent's decision to mechanize. By the Court. Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for entry of new judgment and order modified in accordance with this opinion. WILKIE, J. ( dissenting in part ). I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion which holds that the decision to replace the cucumber hand-picking operation with mechanical harvesters was not bargainable. I interpret Fibreboard [1] differently than the majority, as requiring bargaining of a decision, as here, which certainly and directly has an impact on job security without contemplating the complete termination of business. [2] The decision here was to discontinue the hand-picking work but to replace that operation with mechanized harvesting. The harvesting was continued; only the method was completely changed. The decision did not affect other parts of the cucumber processing work. The WERC reached a conclusion of law in determining that the decision to mechanize the 1968 cucumber harvesting dealt with terms and conditions of employment of many seasonal workers. I think that this conclusion is a reasonable application of the statute and that this application should be accepted by this court. To bargain does not mean that the employer is surrendering his final right to make the mechanization decision. All that is required is that he give the union a chance to persuade the employer that, as the WERC noted in its opinion supporting its order, [T]here are reasonable and economical alternatives to the contemplated change in operation.