Mike Basil Chevrolet, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 16, 2000

331 N.L.R.B. 1044 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1044
Mike Basil Chevrolet, Inc. and Amalgamated Local
55, United Auto Workers Union, Petitioner.
Case 3–AC–42
August 16, 2000
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX
AND LIEBMAN
This case involves the affiliation of a small independ-
ent labor organization, the Hamburg Employees Union
(HEU), with the Petitioner, a larger labor organization.
On September 20, 1996, and September 24, 1999, the
Regional Director for Region 3 issued a Decision and
Order and a Supplemental Decision (attached hereto as
Appendices A and B) finding insufficient continuity of
representation after this affiliation to warrant the re-
quested certification amendment. Because of her finding
of insufficient continuity, the Regional Director did not
determine whether the affiliation proceedings met the
Board’s due process requirements.
The Board granted the Petitioner’s request for review,
and on review, remanded the matter to the Regional Di-
rector for findings on whether the affiliation proceedings
met the Board’s due process requirement. Thereafter, in
a supplemental decision, the Regional Director deter-
mined that the due process standards were satisfied. The
Employer contends that the standards were not met but
that, in any event, there is insufficient continuity of rep-
resentation to grant the petition to amend the certifica-
tion.
Having reviewed the record, we agree with the Re-
gional Director that the affiliation proceedings met the
due process requirements of the Board. We disagree,
however, with her finding of insufficient continuity of
representation. Accordingly, we reverse her finding and
amend the certification as requested.
1. With respect to the due process question, the Re-
gional Director found that the affiliation vote was con-
ducted after employees received adequate notice of a
meeting on the affiliation issues. She further found that
the HEU membership was given an opportunity to dis-
cuss affiliation, to question the proposed course of ac-
tion, and to vote on the question by secret ballot. The
Employer contends that the HEU breached its own rules
with respect to notification of the meeting because it
failed to post the meeting announcement on the official
HEU bulletin board as required by the HEU bylaws. We
agree with the Regional Director that there was sufficient
notification of the meeting and of its subject matter, and
that the Union’s failure to follow its own procedures is
not, in and of itself, a basis for rejecting the affiliation
vote. Rather, the critical question is whether the HEU
membership received adequate and timely notice of the
meeting and of the matter to be considered.1 The Re-
gional Director found, and the Employer does not con-
test, that written notice of the meeting and of its purpose
was personally provided to all but three of the unit mem-
bers. Those three had been absent from work on the date
of distribution and were given notice by certified mail.
Thus, on this record, we find that unit members were
fully and timely notified of the meeting.
Similarly, we reject the Employer’s contention that the
membership was not given adequate opportunity to con-
sider the affiliation question prior to the vote. The record
establishes, and the Regional Director found, that the
affiliation resolution was presented at the meeting and
was followed by a discussion period during which em-
ployees were given full opportunity to question and dis-
cuss the proposal. Nothing in the record indicates that
the discussion period was inadequate or that any em-
ployee was precluded from speaking on or questioning
the proposal or its effects. At the close of the discussion
period, the employees voted on the affiliation by secret
ballot, the results of which were tabulated by a balloting
committee and a representative of the New York State
Labor Relations Board. Accordingly, we agree with the
Regional Director’s findings that the scheduling, notifi-
cation, and conduct of the affiliation vote were conducted
with adequate procedural safeguards.
2. Contrary to the Regional Director, we find that the
affiliation resulted in sufficient continuity of representa-
tion to grant the requested amendment. Citing Western
Commercial Transport, 288 NLRB 214 (1988), the Re-
gional Director found “that the fundamental character of
the representing union will be greatly altered as a result
of the affiliation.” In doing so, she relied on the relative
size of the two organizations, as well as what she per-
ceived as the losses of HEU autonomy, particularly the
ability to select union leadership and to control negotia-
tions and grievance handling.
Applying the principles of Western Commercial Trans-
port we find, unlike the Regional Director, that the
changes here were not of such a character as to warrant
rejection of the petition to amend certification. In assess-
ing continuity questions we consider the totality of the
circumstances, eschewing the tendency toward a “mecha-
nistic approach” or the use of a “strict checklist.”2 Further,
we have previously rejected relative sizes of the two or-
ganizations as a basis for finding discontinuity.3 Rather,
the significant factor is whether there is an identity change
as a result of the affiliation. As the Board said in Western
Commercial Transport, supra, the critical question is
whether the “[c]hanges are so great that a new organiza-

1 CPS Chemical Co., 324 NLRB 1018, 1019–1020 (1997), enf. 160
F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 1998).
2 Sullivan Bros. Printers, 317 NLRB 561, 563 (1995), enf. 99 F.3d
1217 (1st Cir. 1996).
3 CPS Chemical Co., supra at 1021.
331 NLRB No. 137
MIKE BASIL CHEVROLET 1045
tion has come into being.”4 Affiliations will often make a
change in the structure of the representing union but not
every change raises a question concerning representation.
The changes resulting from the affiliation of HEU with
the Petitioner present an example of such a situation.
The employees voted unanimously to affiliate with a
larger organization.5 Although this will result in some
loss of autonomy previously enjoyed by these employ-
ees, they will continue to have a voice in the administra-
tion of their collective-bargaining representative after
affiliation. For example, HEU will become part of the
Petitioner, a UAW local union governed by an executive
board. That executive board is subject to a joint council
composed of 80 to 100 delegates representing the collec-
tive-bargaining units represented by the Petitioner.
Based on its size, the HEU unit will have three delegates
representing it on the joint council. Further, although the
record does not reveal the extent, if any, to which the
HEU officials will maintain their positions after affilia-
tion, it is clear that, notwithstanding the differences in
relative size of HEU and the Petitioner, the employee
members of HEU will continue to be able to participate
in the fundamental decisions on labor management rela-
tions at their localized workplace in much the same man-
ner after affiliation as they did before. Thus, while the
Petitioner’s business representative will be involved in
grievance handling, the unit-shop committee will also
remain involved, and decisions of the business represen-
tative concerning the arbitration of grievances can be
overruled by the Employer’s bargaining unit member-
ship. Similarly, although the Petitioner’s business repre-
sentative is authorized to negotiate collective-bargaining
agreements, all agreements must be ratified by bargain-
ing unit employees as well as by the International Un-
ion’s executive board. And while strikes must be sanc-
tioned by the International Union, a two-thirds vote of
the unit is also required to authorize a strike. Finally, we
note that, although the affiliation places the HEU under
the “formal institutional structure” of the Petitioner and
the UAW, the constitution of the UAW recognizes the
spirit and intent of local contractual relations. Indeed,
the constitution of the International Union and the by-
laws of the Petitioner place “the highest authority” for
the handling of local matters in the hands of the member-
ship of particular units.6

4 Western Commercial Transport, supra at 217.
5 There are 28 members of HEU and approximately 1300 members
of the Petitioner.
6 Art. 10, sec. 5 of the UAW constitution provides:
The general meeting of the Local Union members of an establishment
under jurisdiction of an Amalgamated Local shall be the highest au-
thority for handling problems within the establishment, in conformity
with the bylaws of the Local Union and this International Constitution.
Art. XX, sec. 1 of the Petitioner’s bylaws states:
The highest authority in all units of the local union shall be vested in
the general membership of each particular unit.
The unit employees’ ability to maintain a significant
voice in labor relations affecting their own unit is a core
element in assessing whether or not the affiliation sig-
nificantly altered the identity of HEU such as to find that
it substituted an entirely different union.7 It is clear from
the record that that did not happen here. Indeed, the evi-
dence clearly indicates that the HEU members continue
to have a strong voice in the affairs of their union and
will, after affiliation, continue to be in a strong position
to influence the positions taken by their representative in
dealings with their employer.
Finally, the differences in dues structure between HEU
and the Petitioners do not amount to such a significant
change as to raise a question concerning representation.
There is no initiation fee for those transferring from
HEU, and we do not consider the increase in dues from
approximately 1 hour’s pay per month to slightly over 2
hours’ pay to be significant. As the Board has indicated
in other cases, we believe it is reasonable to assume that
employees who vote to affiliate and thereby attain
stronger representation and better services expect that it
will be more expensive.8
Accordingly, based on the record we find that there is
not a sufficient loss of continuity here to warrant a find-
ing that the affiliation occasioned a question concerning
representation for this bargaining unit. Accordingly, we
amend the certification as requested.
APPENDIX A
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before a
hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board (the
Board). The hearing officer’s rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are affirmed.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to me.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, I find:
The Employer, Mike Basil Chevrolet, Inc., a corporation,
with an office and place of business in Hamburg, New York,
has been engaged in the retail sale and service of automobiles.
The Employer and Amalgamated Local 55, United Auto Work-
ers Union (the Petitioner) stipulated at the hearing that annu-
ally, in the course and conduct of its business operations, the
Employer derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and
purchases and receives at its Hamburg, New York facility,
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside
the State of New York. Based on these facts, and the parties’
stipulations, I find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction here.
The labor organization involved here claims to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
On July 30, 1979, the Hamburg Employees Union (HEU)
was certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of the service employees of Jack Adkins Chevrolet, Inc.,
7 Western Commercial Transport, supra at 217–218.
8 CPS, supra at 1022, 1024.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1046
the predecessor to the Employer here. The Employer com-
menced operations on October 17, 1995, and assumed a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement between Jack Adkins Chevrolet, Inc.
and HEU. The collective-bargaining agreement is effective
from September 1,1994, to August 31, 1997.
On July 24, 1996, an affiliation vote was conducted among
the employees represented by HEU, with a majority of those
employees voting to approve an affiliation of HEU with the
Petitioner. The Petitioner then filed the instant request to amend
the certification to designate the Petitioner as the representative
of the bargaining unit employees. The Employer opposes grant-
ing the amendment because it maintains that the affiliation
election failed to satisfy minimum due process standards and
because of a lack of a substantial continuity between the pre-
and post- affiliation bargaining representative.
I conclude, based on the record as a whole and the case law
discussed below, that there is a lack of substantial continuity
between the HEU and Petitioner sufficient to raise a question of
representation. Accordingly, I shall dismiss the instant petition
to amend certification.
In Western Commercial Transport, 288 NLRB 214 (1988),
the Board found that the affiliation of a small (136-employee
unit), independent union with an entity representing 8500 em-
ployees and affiliated with an international union, did not result
in a continuity of the representative. Relying on changes such
as the wholesale replacement of union officers, the removal of
day-to-day contract administration from local hands, and the
loss of control over the assessment and expenditure of dues, the
Board determined that membership rights and organizational
autonomy were so vitiated as to alter the “fundamental charac-
ter of the representing organization.” Id. at 218. The Board
thus concluded that these changes were “sufficiently dramatic”
to raise a question concerning representation and render inap-
propriate an amendment of certification.
Here, there are numerous differences between the two or-
ganizations which will fundamentally alter the representation of
the bargaining unit. The HEU is a small, independent Union
solely representing the Employer’s 28 employees. The Peti-
tioner has approximately 1300 members, who are employed in
diverse industries. The Petitioner is affiliated with an interna-
tional union, the United Automobile and Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) (the Interna-
tional Union).
Through the HEU’s bylaws, complete autonomy is retained
by its membership. Specifically, HEU’s bylaws may be
amended by two-thirds vote at a regular membership meeting.
HEU’s officers, its president, secretary, and treasurer, are
elected by the membership. Its contract negotiating committee
is comprised of the president and four members elected directly
from the Employer’s mechanical, body, parts, and internal de-
partments. Agreements must be ratified by a majority vote of
the membership. Authorization to strike is by two-thirds major-
ity vote of the membership. No member may be found guilty of
charges of violation of the bylaws without two-thirds majority
vote of the membership. The membership in each of the Em-
ployer’s four departments elects a steward for grievance han-
dling. The president, together with the steward from the de-
partment in which the grievance arises, and one other member
appointed by the president, comprise the grievance committee.
HEU members pay a $20 initiation fee and dues in the amount
of 1 hour’s wages per month. HEU’s assets consist of a bank
account of approximately $2800.
By contrast, the Petitioner’s bylaws are subordinate to the
constitution of the UAW International Union. The Petitioner’s
executive board consists of a president, three vice presidents, a
financial secretary-treasurer, three trustees, a sergeant-at-arms,
and a guide. The executive board is subordinate to a joint coun-
cil comprised of approximately 80 to 100 or more delegates
from the bargaining units represented by the Petitioner; the
number of delegates is proportionally based on the size of each
of the respective bargaining units. As a result, the employees of
the Employer, upon affiliation, would be entitled to have only
three delegates on the joint council. Members may be found
guilty of a violation of the Petitioner’s bylaws by majority vote
at a membership meeting; however, a member may appeal a
finding of guilt to the International Union’s executive board.
The Petitioner’s business representatives are solely authorized
to negotiate collective-bargaining agreements. All contracts
must be ratified by unit employees and by the International
Union’s executive board and signed by an International Union
representative. All grievances are processed by a unit shop
committee and a petitioner business representative. The busi-
ness representative must approve the arbitration of a grievance,
but may be overruled by a vote of the membership in the bar-
gaining unit in which the grievance arises. Strikes must be au-
thorized by the International Union’s executive board, after
approval by a two-thirds majority vote of the membership in
the unit at issue; the International Union has the authority to
separately call an end to a strike. The Petitioner has assets of
approximately $588,000. The new member initiation fee is $50;
however, members of HEU at the time of affiliation would be
exempt from the initiation fee. Members are charged dues in
the amount of 2 hours’ pay plus $2.73 per month. Only 33 per-
cent of the dues collected is kept by the Petitioner; the remain-
der is sent to the International Union and its strike fund.
While the record is silent as to whether the incumbent HEU
officers would retain their nominal positions after affiliation
with the Petitioner, it is clear that the current HEU officers’
duties relating to day-to-day contract administration and inter-
nal union administration would be assumed by the Petitioner’s
representatives. The dues, which presently are directly con-
trolled by the HEU membership, both in terms of amounts as-
sessed and in expenditures, would, upon affiliation, be shared
by the Petitioner and the International Union, thereby placing
these moneys beyond the direct control of the bargaining unit.
Control over contract negotiations, grievance handling, and
strike authorization would similarly shift, to a great extent,
from the HEU membership to the Petitioner and its Interna-
tional Union.
In sum, the record is clear that the existing bargaining repre-
sentative, the HEU, would, as a result of affiliation, undergo
substantial changes in size, organizational structure, and ad-
ministration. The autonomy of the membership that exists
within the HEU will be diminished to reflect the formal institu-
tional structure of the Petitioner. Given the small size of the
HEU unit, 28 employee-members, compared with the large
membership in the Petitioner, 1300 members, it is clear that the
HEU unit employees’ control over the direction of the activities
of the Petitioner will be vastly reduced.
Accordingly, I conclude that the fundamental character of
the representing union will be greatly altered as a result of the
affiliation. Such circumstances raise a question of representa-
tion warranting dismissal of the instant petition to amend certi-
fication. See Western Commercial Transport, supra; and Gar-
MIKE BASIL CHEVROLET 1047
lock Equipment Co., 288 NLRB 247 (1988). See also NLRB v.
Financial Institution Employees Local 1182, 475 U.S. 192
(1986).
Given the conclusions reached above, I find it unnecessary to
examine the second condition that must be met before the
Board will grant a petition to amend certification, i.e., whether
the affiliation vote satisfied minimum due process concerns.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition here be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
RIGHT TO REQUEST REVIEW
Under the provisions of Section 102.67 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations, a request for review of this decision may be
filed with the National Labor Relations Board, addressed to the
Executive Secretary, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20570. This request must be received by the Board in Wash-
ington by October 4, 1996.
APPENDIX B
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
A Decision and Order in this matter issued by me on Sep-
tember 20, 1996, dismissing the petition based upon my finding
of a lack of continuity of representation, which raised a ques-
tion concerning representation of employees in the unit in issue.
On August 3, 1999, the Board granted the Petitioner’s request
for review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order and
remanded the instant case to make findings on the issue of due
process in the affiliation vote.1
The Board has traditionally required that two conditions be
met before it will grant a petition for the amendment of certifi-
cation based on an affiliation or merger. The Board requires
that there be substantial continuity between the bargaining rep-
resentative before and the bargaining representative after the
affiliation, and that the vote itself occur under circumstances
satisfying minimum due process. See, e.g., Western Commer-
cial Transport, 288 NLRB 214 (1988), and Hammond Publish-
ers, 286 NLRB 49 (1987). See also CPS Chemical Co., 324
NLRB 1018 (1997), and May Department Stores Co., 289
NLRB 661 (1988), in which the same issues arise in the context
of unfair labor practice charges.
In my original Decision and Order, I concluded that the fun-
damental character of the representing union would be greatly
altered as a result of the affiliation and that such circumstances
raise a question of representation warranting dismissal of the
petition to amend certification.
In Western Commercial Transport, supra at 218 fn. 14, the
Board found it unnecessary to address the issue of the alleged
lack of due process in the affiliation procedure because of its
conclusion that affiliation in that case constituted “dramatic
changes that raise a question of representation.” Id. at 218. In
so finding, the Board noted the following:

1 The Petitioner, by letter to me dated September 9, 1999, requests
that a hearing be held in this matter to decide the factual issues identi-
fied by the Board in its Order granting the Petitioner’s request for re-
view. The Petitioner’s request is hereby denied, as the Board solely
directed me to make additional findings on the issue of due process, but
did not direct a further hearing in this matter, and in light of my conclu-
sion that the extant record, in which the due process issue was fully
litigated, is sufficient to make such findings.
Thus, once a question concerning representation is raised as a
result of dramatic changes in the bargaining representative, an
affiliation vote cannot be used as a substitute for a representa-
tion proceeding before the Board to bring in a totally new
bargaining representative. Id. at 218.
Given the conclusion reached in my original Decision and Order,
i.e., that the existing bargaining representative here would, as a
result of affiliation, undergo substantial changes that raise a ques-
tion concerning representation, I found it unnecessary to examine
the second condition that must be met before the Board will grant a
petition to amend certification, i.e., whether the affiliation vote
satisfied minimum due process concerns. Western Commercial
Transport, supra.
Pursuant to the Board’s remand, however, directing me to
make findings concerning whether the affiliation vote satisfied
minimum due process concerns, I find, contrary to the Em-
ployer’s contentions in its posthearing brief, that the affiliation
vote was conducted with adequate procedural safeguards, as
discussed below.
Specifically, the record establishes that on July 12, 1996, the
Hamburg Employees Union (the HEU) executive board met to
discuss affiliating with the Petitioner. The executive board,
consisting of HEU’s president, vice president, secretary, and
treasurer, unanimously voted to recommend affiliation to the
HEU membership. The executive board members signed a
notarized declaration dated July 12, 1996, stating that the ex-
ecutive board agreed to affiliate with the Petitioner and that the
executive board recommended such affiliation to the member-
ship.
During the week following the July 12, 1996 executive board
meeting, the HEU distributed to its members a notice of special
meeting and the executive board’s July 12 declaration.2 The
notice states:
At a special meeting of the (Independent) Hamburg Employ-
ees Union to be held at Limericks, S4923 Southwestern
Boulevard, Hamburg, at 7.00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 24,
1996, a secret ballot vote will be taken on the issue of affilia-
tion of this local union with the International Union of Auto
Workers and its Amalgamated Local 55. Every member of
the bargaining unit is invited and urged to attend, discuss the
issue, and vote.
The notice also incorporated a copy of the sample ballot requesting
members to vote on the following question: “Do you wish the (In-
dependent) Hamburg Employees Union to affiliate with The Inter-
national Union U.A.W. and its Amalgamated Local 55?”
Copies of the notice and declaration were manually distrib-
uted by the HEU’s officers to most of the members at the Em-
ployer’s workplace. Each member manually receiving the no-
tice and declaration signed an undated form acknowledging
receipt of the two documents. Three other members who were
absent from the Employer’s workplace when the notice and
declaration were distributed, received the notice and declaration
by certified mail from the HEU. The certified mail return re-
ceipts show that the documents were received by these mem-
bers on July 22, 1996.
2 Witnesses at the hearing could not recall the specific dates that the
notice of special meeting and the executive board’s declaration were
distributed to the members, but believed it to be about the Wednesday
through Friday of the week following the executive board’s declaration.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1048
The HEU’s bylaws, article VI, section 3, provide that notices
of HEU meetings must be posted by the HEU secretary on the
HEU’s official bulletin board 1 week in advance of the meet-
ing. No such notice was posted concerning the July 24 special
meeting.
The special meeting was convened, as scheduled, on July 24,
1996, at 7:30 p.m. The HEU did not hold any membership
meetings specifically concerning the affiliation prior to the July
24 meeting.3 The July 24 meeting was attended by HEU offi-
cials and members, and representatives of the Petitioner. The
following resolution of the HEU was presented and read to the
membership at the meeting:
Resolution providing for affiliation:
Whereas, it is the desire of the membership and officers of
this organization known as the (Independent) Hamburg Em-
ployees Union, that said organization affiliate with and be-
come chartered by the International Union U.A.W. and its
Amalgamated Local 55, as a unit of said Local 55 because of
the International and Local Union’s prestige and its ability to
provide expert technical assistance arid advice to the officers
and membership of this organization: and Whereas, it is the
desire of the officers and membership of International Union
and its Amalgamated Local 55 as has been done in the past
and as is presently being done:
Now, Therefore, It Is Hereby Resolved as follows:
A. That this organization presently known as the (Independ-
ent) Hamburg Employees Union be and is hereafter known as
Amalgamated Local 55 of the International United Automo-
bile, Aerospace and Agriculture Implement Workers of
America (UAW).
B. That all assets and property of this organization, including
but not limited to its bank account, its collective bargaining
agreement dated September 1, 1994 with Mike Basil Chevro-
let Inc., formerly Jack Adkins Chevrolet, Inc., and related
pension and insurance and insurance agreements, be hereafter
held by this organization under the name and style of Amal-
gamated Local 55, of the International Union U.A.W.
C. That this organization apply promptly to International Un-
ion U.A.W. and its amalgamated Local 55 for affiliation
therewith and for a documentary acceptance evidencing such
affiliation as the Mike Basil Chevrolet Inc. unit.
D. That this organization continue its relationship with Mike
Basil Chevrolet Inc. as the duly certified and recognized bar-
gaining representative of the employees covered under Article
1 of the collective bargaining agreement dated September 1,
1994 with Mike Basil Chevrolet Inc., formerly Jack Adkins
Chevrolet Inc.
E. That the officers and committee members of this organiza-
tion take all steps necessary to accomplish the objectives set
forth hereinabove.
Following the presentation of the resolution, HEU members
were given the opportunity to discuss and ask questions con-

3 The record indicates generally, based on the testimony of the
HEU’s president, that members had the opportunity, prior to the special
meeting, to ask questions of the HEU’s president concerning the affilia-
tion when he spoke with employees in the Employer’s facility about the
special meeting; and that questions concerning affiliation were brought
up by members in HEU meetings prior to the executive board’s July 12,
1996 meeting.
cerning the affiliation. According to notes taken at the meeting
by the HEU’s secretary, a member asked whether the Employer
“could hock [sic] the Union out tomorrow.” The HEU’s presi-
dent replied that they had a contract. While not reflected in the
secretary’s notes, witnesses at the hearing testified that mem-
bers also asked questions concerning the effect of affiliation on
their 401(k) plan and on their union dues structure. A witness
at the hearing also recalled, as a point of discussion at the meet-
ing, that affiliation would bring the added benefit of additional
financial resources in the event of a “problem” that “we
couldn’t work out.”
Following the discussion and question period, representa-
tives of the Petitioner left the meeting, a balloting committee
consisting of three HEU members was elected by the HEU
membership and a secret ballot election was conducted with the
assistance of a representative of the New York State Labor
Relations Board, who was present at the meeting.4
Concerning the voting procedure, the balloting committee
gave each member a ballot to mark and an envelope to seal the
ballot. The sealed envelope was then placed in the ballot box.
The ballot box was emptied and shown empty to the member-
ship at the conclusion of voting. The ballot envelopes were then
opened and tabulated before the membership by the balloting
committee and the New York State Labor Relations Board
representative.
The New York State Labor Relations Board representative
issued a report of tally at the conclusion of the election showing
that there were 28 eligible voters, 20 ballots cast, with 18 bal-
lots in favor of affiliation, no ballots against the affiliation, and
2 challenged ballots.5 The special meeting was then adjourned
at 8:15 p.m. Immediately following the close of the meeting,
the report of tally was signed by the Labor Relations Board
representative, the HEU’s president, and a representative of the
Petitioner, who had been contacted to return to the voting site at
the conclusion of the meeting.6
The Employer, as the party asserting that the affiliation vote
lacked adequate procedural safeguards, has the burden of estab-
lishing such contentions. See CPS Chemical Co., 324 NLRB
1018 fn. 7 (1997), and cases cited therein.
First, the Employer contends that the HEU members did not
have adequate notice of the affiliation vote or a fair opportunity
to consider the affiliation. The record reflects, however, that all
but three members were personally notified of the affiliation
vote at work during the week preceding the vote, while the
remaining three members received notice by mail several days
before the affiliation vote. While, as the Employer notes, the
notice of special meeting was not posted on the HEU bulletin
board, as required by the HEU’s bylaws, the question is not
whether the HEU’s notice of meeting requirements were fol-
lowed, but rather, whether the members received adequate no-
tice of the affiliation vote.
4 One of the witnesses at the hearing incorrectly identified the New
York State Labor Relations Board representative as a representative of
the National Labor Relations Board.
5 It appears from the record that the balloting committee made the
challenges to two of the voters because they were not HEU members,
or not yet members of the HEU.
6 The Report of Tally also states that “Notice of Election” was July
1, 1996. However, the record does not establish whether such is a refer-
ence to notification of members of the election. As noted above, the
record indicates that members received notice of the election between
the July 12 executive board meeting and the July 24 affiliation vote.
MIKE BASIL CHEVROLET 1049
I find that the notice to members of the affiliation vote was
sufficient. The Board does not require union affiliation elec-
tions to be conducted in same manner as Board representation
elections. CPS Chemical Co., supra at 1020. Moreover, there is
no evidence to indicate that any of the voting employees ob-
jected to any lack of notice concerning the affiliation vote. See
Insulfab Plastics, 274 NLRB 817, 823 (1985).
I further find that the members were given an adequate op-
portunity to consider the affiliation before voting. HEU mem-
bers at the special meeting were given the opportunity to dis-
cuss the resolution of affiliation and ask questions concerning
the affiliation before the vote. There is no evidence indicating
that such discussion period was cut short by the HEU’s officers
or Petitioner’s representatives before the members had an op-
portunity to ask further questions or to continue the discussion.
The record also indicates generally that the members had the
opportunity prior to the special meeting to ask questions of the
HEU’s president concerning the affiliation when he spoke with
employees in the shop about the special meeting. In addition,
the record refers to questions concerning affiliation brought up
by members in HEU meetings prior to the executive board’s
July 12 declaration. I also note that there is no evidence indi-
cating that any members objected to the affiliation vote because
of a lack of adequate opportunity to consider the affiliation.
Finally, the Employer, in its posthearing brief, does not con-
tend that the voting procedure at the special meeting itself
lacked due process safeguards. In this regard, I note that there
is no evidence indicating that any member objected to the vot-
ing procedure or that the election result did not accurately re-
flect the votes cast or the true sentiments of the HEU member-
ship concerning the affiliation. See CPS Chemical Co., 324
NLRB at 1019.
RIGHT TO REQUEST REVIEW
Under the provisions of Section 102.67 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations, a request for review of this Supplemental
Decision may be filed with the National Labor Relations Board,
addressed to the Executive Secretary, 1099 14th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20570. This request must be received by the
Board in Washington by October 8, 1999.