Yes, the government can definitely force the company to bargain. A union can prove it has majority support by getting workers to sign cards; a formal election isn't the only way. While a secret vote is usually the best method, it's not an option when the company has cheated and made a fair election impossible. If a company threatens or fires workers to stop a union, it's not fair to then hold an election that the company has already rigged. In those cases, forcing the company to bargain based on the cards is the best way to protect the workers' right to choose. Also, a boss can't just threaten to close the business to scare workers. A boss can only predict bad outcomes if they are based on real-world facts that are out of their control, not on threats of what they will do to punish workers.

Yes, employers have to bargain with a union if most workers signed cards fairly saying they want the union. The court can order employers to bargain if they've been unfair in a way that makes a fair vote unlikely. Some things employers say can be so unfair that they're not protected by free speech rights.

Yes, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has the authority to issue a bargaining order in these circumstances. The National Labor Relations Act does not mandate a Board-certified election as the exclusive means for a union to establish majority status; convincing evidence such as authorization cards is a valid alternative. While a secret ballot election is the preferred method, authorization cards are sufficiently reliable to support a bargaining order when an employer's unfair labor practices have undermined the election process. The Court upholds the Board's 'Cumberland Shoe' doctrine, which treats an unambiguous authorization card as valid unless an employee was explicitly told the card's sole purpose was to obtain an election. A bargaining order is an appropriate and necessary remedy to counteract employer misconduct that makes a fair election unlikely, as it deters such conduct and restores the conditions that existed before the employer's unlawful actions. The Court established a framework for issuing such orders based on the severity of the employer's unfair labor practices, ranging from 'outrageous' and 'pervasive' conduct that justifies an order even without a card majority, to 'minor' infractions that do not. The Court also held that an employer's speech is not protected by the First Amendment or § 8(c) of the Act if it contains a threat of reprisal, such as a prediction of plant closure that is not based on objective fact or demonstrable economic consequences beyond the employer's control.

Yes, the duty to bargain can arise without a Board election under the Act because union authorization cards, if obtained without misrepresentation or coercion, are reliable indicators of employee desires. A bargaining order is an appropriate remedy where an employer's unfair labor practices undermine the union's majority and impede a fair election. Specific statements made by an employer can constitute an election-voiding unfair labor practice outside the protection of the First Amendment and § 8(c) of the Act.

NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot