## Facts

- A union conducted an organizing campaign among employees of Gourmet Foods, Inc.
- Management opposed the campaign; early in the effort the company president stated he would do anything to keep a union out.
- Over several months, the employer responded to union activity with workplace conduct found to include:
  - Discriminatory discipline and discharges of union supporters.
  - Threats tied to union support, including potential job loss and plant closure.
  - Retaliatory tightening of working conditions.
  - Enforcement of workplace rules in a manner that chilled protected activity.
- The union requested a remedial bargaining order requiring recognition and bargaining without an election.
- The union never obtained majority support in the bargaining unit at any time during the campaign.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer’s threats, disciplinary actions, discharges, and enforcement of workplace rules interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights in violation of NLRA § 8(a)(1).
2. Whether the Board may issue a remedial bargaining order under the Gissel doctrine when the union never had majority support, based solely on the severity of the employer’s unfair labor practices.

## Decision

- The Board found that Gourmet Foods violated NLRA § 8(a)(1) through coercive conduct during the organizing campaign, including overbroad rules and discriminatory enforcement that discouraged union activity.
- The Board denied the union’s request for a bargaining order because the union never established majority support in the unit.
- The Board ordered traditional remedies for the unfair labor practices, including cease-and-desist relief and notice posting, and reinstatement/backpay where appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Employer conduct violates § 8(a)(1) when it reasonably tends to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights.
- Facially neutral workplace rules can violate § 8(a)(1) if they are overbroad or applied in a way employees could reasonably interpret as restricting protected concerted activity.
- Discriminatory discipline, discharges, threats, and retaliatory changes in working conditions aimed at union supporters constitute unlawful interference with protected rights.
- A Gissel remedial bargaining order generally requires proof the union previously had majority support; serious unfair labor practices alone do not justify compelling bargaining where no majority ever existed.

## Conclusion

The Board held that Gourmet Foods committed § 8(a)(1) violations by using rules, discipline, and coercive tactics to deter union activity, but it refused to impose a bargaining order because the union never achieved majority status in the unit.


Gourmet Foods, Inc., 270 N.L.R.B. 578 (1984)