The defendant, Berger Transfer and Storage, operated a national moving and transfer business employing approximately forty persons. In May and June, Local 705 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters spoke with a number of Berger employees, obtaining twenty-eight cards signed in support of the union. The management of Berger, unwilling to work with the union, attempted to prevent it from representing Berger employees. The company first assigned all work to those with high seniority, in effect temporarily laying off low-seniority employees. The management then threatened to lay off permanently those with low seniority and threatened all employees with a total shutdown of the plant. The management interrogated several employees about their union involvement and attempted to extract information about other employees’ activities. When the union presented the company the signed cards and recognition agreement, Berger refused to acknowledge the union’s existence or its right to bargain on behalf of the employees. The union then called a strike, with employees picketing the Berger warehouse. During the picketing, the company threatened to terminate the picketers if they did not return to work. Later, one manager on two occasions recklessly drove a truck through the picket line, striking employees. Finally, the company contacted several of the employees and offered them the ‘‘grievance procedures and job security’’ the union would provide.
The employees refused the offer. On June 15, the strike ended, with most of the picketers returning to work. Local 705 filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that Berger had committed unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Will the Local 705 succeed? Explain.