Hydrothern, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1984

270 N.L.R.B. 1131 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

HYDROTHERM, INC.
Hydrotherm, Inc. and Petroleum, Construction,
Tank Line Drivers & Allied Employees Union
No. 311 a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 5-RC-
11961
11 June 1984
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered determinative chal-
lenges in and objections to an election held 12 May
1983 and the Regional Director's report recom-
mending disposition of them. The election was con-
ducted pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agree-
ment. The tally of ballots shows 59 for and 56
against the Petitioner, with 7 challenged ballots.
The Board has reviewed the record' in light of
the exceptions and brief, has adopted the Regional
Director's findings2 and recommendations, and
finds that a certification of representative should be
issued.
Unlike our dissenting colleague, we see no
reason to reverse the Regional Director and
remand this case for a hearing on the Employer's
Objections 5 and 12. These objections allege that
preceding the election the Petitioner improperly
conditioned the waiver of union initiation fees on
the signing of union authorization cards and threat-
ened employees who had not signed authorization
cards with $200 fines. The Employer's evidence in
support of these objections consisted of the affida-
vits of two employees and a supervisor who stated
that about a month before the election employees
were told by other unidentified employees that if
the Union won the election employees who had
not signed union membership cards would be fined
$200. One of the employees approached union or-
ganizer Greason and asked him if there would be a
fine if she did not sign a card. According to the
employee Greason responded that "there would be
no fine, that the card was an application to get the
union into the plant. He did say there would be an
initiation fee, but he did not say how much."
I We deny the Employer's motion to compel transfer of file to the
Board. See Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982), and Frontier Hotel, 266
NLRB No. 155 (May 23, 1983), enfd. No. 83-7511 (9th Cir. 1984).
X In adopting the Regional Director's recommendations that Employ-
er's Objections 4 and 6 be overruled, Chairman Dotson finds it unneces-
sary to rely on the Regional Director's statement that there is no evi-
dence to establish that agents of the Petitioner were responsible for cer-
tain conduct alleged to be objectionable.
270 NLRB No. 168
In NLRB v. Savair Mfg.Co., 414 U.S. 270 (1973),
the Supreme Court held that a union's offer to
waive initiation fees for only those employees who
signed authorization cards before the election im-
pairs employee free choice and warrants setting the
election aside. The Court found that obtaining em-
ployees' signatures on authorization cards in such a
manner "allows the union to buy endorsements and
paint a false portrait of employee support during its
election campaign" and may create a feeling of ob-
ligation to vote for the union in the election. Id. at
277-278. The Regional Director relying on Savair
concluded that the Employer failed to submit evi-
dence to support a finding that the Petitioner en-
gaged in objectionable conduct. We agree. In order
for Savair principles to apply, there must be some
evidence that employees are being induced to sign
an authorization card before the election in order
to qualify for some special concession. The Em-
ployer failed to show that Greason coupled his al-
leged comments with any card solicitation activi-
ties or with any statement distinguishing employees
who signed cards before the election from employ-
ees who signed afterwards. In fact, Greason's al-
leged statements made no reference whatsoever to
any offer by the Union to waive initiation fees and
did not contain a single exhortation to sign a card
or to join the Union before the election. We cannot
agree with our dissenting colleague's conclusion
that Greason's comments directly equated the idea
of a fine for not signing a card before the election
with the idea of an initiation fee for not signing a
card before the election when no words which
could reasonably support such a conclusion were
ever uttered. We fail to see any ambiguity in Grea-
son's alleged statements and do not view his com-
ments as susceptible to any objectionable interpre-
tation. Rather we view Greason's statements as
merely a passing reference to the initial financial
obligations of union members should the Union
"get in the plant," and we agree with the Regional
Director that these comments repudiated the
rumor3 circulating in the Employer's facility re-
garding a fine for those employees who did not
sign authorization cards. Absent any evidence of
union-initiated or condoned ambiguity in state-
ments regarding fines or initiation fees we conclude
contrary to our dissenting colleague that the Union
was under no obligation to clarify any of the al-
leged objectionable statements. We further con-
s The Employer in its brief in support of exceptions acknowledged that
the alleged statements regarding the imposition of S200 fines were
"rumors." We note that the Employer's witnesses were unable to identify
the employees from whom they heard the rumors and failed to present
any evidence that the Union was in any manner responsible for the initi-
ation or dissemination of the rumors.
1131
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
elude that all the relevant facts regarding Employ-
er's Objections 5 and 12 are currently before the
Board and that the objections do not raise material
or substantial issues of fact or law requiring a hear-
ing.
CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal-
lots have been cast for Petroleum, Construction,
Tank Line Drivers & Allied Employees Union No.
311 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica and that it is the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees
employed at the Employer's Dundalk, Mary-
land facility, including maintenance/utility em-
ployees, assemblers, machine operators, testers,
inspectors, brazers, painters, welders, machin-
ists, set-up operators, material handlers, store
keepers, shipping and receiving clerks, tool
and die makers, but excluding managerial em-
ployees, lead supervisors, office clericals,
schedulers, expediters, production control
clerks, quality assurance technicians, purchas-
ing agents, industrial and manufacturing engi-
neers, professional employees, confidential em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
MEMBER HUNTER, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues, I would not adopt
the Regional Director's recommendations to over-
rule the Employer's Objections 5 and 12. In my
opinion, the Employer has submitted evidence
which, at the very least, raises issues best resolved
by a hearing.
Objection 5 alleged that the Petitioner improper-
ly conditioned the waiver of initiation fees on the
signing of union authorization cards before the
election. Objection 12 alleged that the Petitioner
threatened employees with $200 fines if they did
not sign union authorization cards before the elec-
tion. In support of its objections, the Employer
submitted employee affidavits which alleged, inter
alia, that employees were told by other employees
that if the Union won the election employees who
had not signed authorization cards would be fined
$200. One employee approached union organizer
Greason before the election and asked him whether
there would be a fine if she did not sign a card.
According to the employee, Greason responded
"that there would be no fine, that the card was an
application to get the union into the plant," al-
though he "did say there would be an initiation
fee." The Regional Director, finding no evidence
to support the Employer's contention that the
Union conditioned the waiver of initiation fees on
the preelection signing of cards, further found that
Greason's alleged statement both "explained the
Union's initiation fee policy" and "repudiated the
rumors of a $200 fine that were being circulated at
the Employer's facility."
It is well established that a union's offer to waive
initiation fees only for those employees who signed
authorization cards before the election constitutes
grounds for setting aside the election. NLRB v.
Savair Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 270 (1973). It also is well
established that when a union offer to waive initi-
ation fees is ambiguous, it is the union's duty "to
clarify that ambiguity or suffer whatever conse-
quences might attach to employees' possible inter-
pretations of the ambiguity." Inland Shoe Mfg. Co.,
211 NLRB 724, 725 (1974). The Board has remand-
ed cases for a hearing when it appears that alleged
union statements concerning waiver are ambiguous
and susceptible to an interpretation violative of the
Savair standards. See, e.g., Eurasian Automotive
Products, 234 NLRB 1049 (1978); Rounsaville of
Tampa, 224 NLRB 455 (1976). Here, evidence was
adduced that, in response to an employee's inquiry
about whether she would be fined for not signing a
card, the union organizer indicated there would be
no fine but there was an initiation fee. In my view,
rather than "explaining" the Petitioner's initiation
fee policy, Greason's alleged response directly
equated the idea of a fine for not signing a card
before the election with the idea of an initiation fee
for not signing a card before the election. The ob-
vious implication is that an initiation fee would not
be imposed if the employee were to sign a card.
Thus, since Greason's alleged statement is ambigu-
ous and susceptible to an objectionable interpreta-
tion, it raises substantial and material factual issues
warranting a hearing. Accordingly, I disagree with
my colleagues' decision to overrule Objections 5
and 12 without the benefit of a hearing, and I
therefore must dissent from the certification of the
Petitioner as collective-bargaining representative.'
I In filing this dissent, I find it unnecessary to pass on the Employer's
other objections which are overruled as a result of the majority's deci-
sion.
1132