Rounsaville Of Tampa, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 455 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

ROUNSAVILLE OF TAMPA, INC 455
Rounsaville of Tampa, Inc. and Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs , and Helpers Local Union #79, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Pe-
titioner . Case 12-RC-4951
June 8, 1976
ORDER DIRECTING HEARING
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election approved by the Regional Director
for Region 12 of the National Labor Relations Board
on November 13, 1975, an election by secret ballot
was conducted in the above-entitled proceeding on
November 24, 1975, under the direction and supervi-
sion of the Regional Director, among the employees
in the stipulated appropriate unit Upon the conclu-
sion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished
the parties in accordance with the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended
The tally of ballots showed that of approximately
20 eligible voters 13 cast votes for the Petitioner, and
7 cast ballots against the Petitioner There were no
void or challenged ballots
Thereafter, on December 2, 1975, the Employer
filed a timely objection to the election contending
that Petitioner improperly promised employees that
there would be no initiation fee for employees who
joined the Petitioner prior to the election
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102 69 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
an investigation of the issues raised by the objections
was conducted under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director On January 29, 1976, the
Regional Director issued and served on the parties
his Report on Objections, in which he recommended
that the Board overrule the objection and issue ap-
propriate certification in favor of the Petitioner
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to
the Regional Director's report and a supporting brief
urging that the election be set aside or, in the alterna-
tive, that a hearing be directed on its objection
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has duly considered the matter and is
of the opinion that issues have been raised with re-
spect to the Employer's objection which can best be
resolved by a hearing
Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we believe
that the direction of a hearing here is totally consis-
tent with the Board's holdings in the "charter mem-
bership" cases' In the "charter membership" cases
the Board concluded that the ultimate issue of
whether a Union's offer of a waiver of initiation fees
was objectionable turned on whether the offer was
ambiguous and reasonably susceptible to an inter-
pretation violative of the standard established by the
Supreme Court in N L R B v Savair Manufacturing
Co 2 Here in a letter dated November 21, 1975, the
Petitioner informed the employees that "[thhere is an
initiation fee, for future members, why deny the
truth " The letter did not define or otherwise explain
who "future members" would be Therefore, the
Petitioner's use of the phrase "future members" was
ambiguous within the meaning of the "charter mem-
bership" cases Furthermore, this ambiguous use of
the phrase "future members," like the ambiguous use
of the phrase "charter member" made it unclear
whether employees' initiation fees would be waived
for those joining the Petitioner after the election, or
only prior thereto
Accordingly, the employees could well have been
induced to become early members of the Petitioner
on the reasonable belief that only thereby could they
avoid being "future members" who would have to
pay initiation fees Had the Petitioner's waiver offer
been limited to the "future members" statement in its
November 21, 1975, letter, we would unhesitatingly
find Petitioner's waiver offer to be objectionable un-
der the "charter membership" cases However, at a
meeting held on November 19, 1975, the Petitioner's
secretary-treasurer, Meeks, made certain statements
to the employees concerning eligibility for the waiver
of initiation fees As revealed by the Regional
Director's Report on Objections, the statements and
affidavits of the employees are in conflict as to what
Meeks actually told the employees concerning the
waiver of initiation fees This conflict must be re-
solved by a hearing since, if it is established that
Meeks unequivocally told the employees that the
waiver would not be restricted only to employees
that joined the Petitioner prior to the election, we
would find, consistent with the "charter member-
ship" cases, that the "future members" statement was
sufficiently clarified and it could not reasonably have
misled the employees into believing that they must
join the Petitioner prior to the election to avoid pay-
ing initiation fees
It is hereby ordered that a hearing be held before a
duly designated Hearing Officer for the purpose of
1 Inland Shoe Manufacturing Co, Inc, 211 NLRB 724 (1974), The Cole
man Company, Inc 212 NLRB 927 (1974), D A B Industries, Inc, 215
NLRB 527 (1974)
2414 U S 270 (1973)
224 NLRB No 45
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
receiving evidence to resolve the issues raised with
respect to the Employer's objection
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Hearing Officer
designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing
shall prepare and cause to be served on the parties a
report containing resolutions of the credibility of wit-
nesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the
Board as to the disposition of said objection Within
10 days from the date of issuance of such report,
either party may file with the Board in Washington,
D C, eight copies of exceptions thereto Immediately
upon the filing of such exceptions, the party filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof on the other party,
and shall file a copy with the Regional Director If
no exceptions are filed thereto, the Board will adopt
the recommendations of the Hearing Officer
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled mat-
ter be, and it hereby is, referred to the Regional Di-
rector for Region 12 for the purpose of conducting
such hearing, and that the said Regional Director be,
and he hereby is, authorized to issue notice thereof
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting
Unlike my colleagues, I would affirm the Regional
Director's decision in this case to overrule the sole
objection to the November 24, 1975, election, which
the Petitioner won 13 to 7 In its objection, the Em-
ployer alleged that the Petitioner in a letter informed
employees
that there will be no initiation fee for those em-
ployees who join the [Petitioner] prior to the
election [and further that] prior to the elec-
tion, various employees were told that if they
signed cards for the [Petitioner] before the elec-
tion there would be no initiation fee
As the Regional Director found, the Employer pre-
sented no evidence that the Petitioner, or any of its
agents, orally or in writing made any of the above-
quoted statements Rather, the record shows that at a
meeting held 5 days before the election two of several
employees heard Petitioner's representative, R H
Meeks, respond to a question about the financial
obligations of union membership by saying some-
thing about the possibility that the Union's Interna-
tional might authorize the waiver of initiation fees
for "charter members " One of the two employees
heard Meeks explain that the waiver would extend to
employees who joined the Petitioner within 30 days
after the Petitioner won the election, while the sec-
ond employee stated that Meeks, who did not define
"charter member," "in no way" said or indicated that
the waiver was conditioned on the signing of an au-
thorization card Finally, on November 21, 3 days
before the election, Meeks sent to all 20 unit employ-
ees a two-page single-spaced letter which in pertinent
part stated that
There is an initiation fee, for future members,
why deny the truth Every organization charges
initiation fees
From the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that the
Employer had failed to show that "[t]hose solicited
were told that there would be no initiation fee
charged those who signed [cards] before the elec-
tion " N L R B v Savair Manufacturing Co, 414 U S
270, 274 (1973) There is simply no evidence that the
Petitioner coupled its card solicitation activities with
any statements of any kind concerning the waiver of
initiation fees for those signing cards before the elec-
tion Moreover, as shown, the only condition that
attached to the isolated statements about waiving ini-
tiation fees for "charter" or "future" members was
entirely proper under the Savair standard, that is, the
first employee stated that Meeks said that the waiver
extended to employees signing cards within 30 days
after the Petitioner won the election
Nonetheless , my colleagues find that the failure to
explain the meanings of both "charter members" (to
the second employee) and "future members" created
an ambiguity which brings this case within the ambit
of the charter membership cases 3 Thus, although
they concede that the evidence reveals that the only
condition attached to the possible granting of the
waiver was entirely proper, my colleagues direct a
hearing to determine, inter aha, whether Meeks "un-
equivocally" told employees that the waiver "would
not be" improperly restricted to those employees
joining before the election I think that this preoccu-
pation with nonfacts distorts Savair and even marks
a departure from the charter member cases Hereto-
fore, I have understood the majority in the charter
member cases to be saying that in order for the Sa-
vair principle to apply there must, at the very least,
be some evidentiary connection between the solicita-
tion of cards and the promise of special benefits for
"charter members" which can support a reasonable
inference that the employees solicited are being in-
duced to sign up before the election because of some
special concession See Coleman, supra (an applica-
tion card for charter members), D A B, supra (a
temporary membership card), and Inland, supra (a
written appeal to sign a card) Here, by contrast, the
majority seizes upon the failure to define "charter"
membership to an employee who readily conceded
that "in no way" was the possible waiver of the initi-
3 Inland Shoe Manufacturing Co, The, 211 NLRB 724 (1974), The Cole
man Company, Inc 212 NLRB 927 (1974), D A B Industries, Inc, 215
NLRB 527 (1974)
ROUNSAVILLE OF TAMPA, INC 457
ation fee conditioned upon the signing of an authori-
zation card, and a passing reference to the initial fi-
nancial obligations of "future members" in "every
organization" in a letter which contained not a single
exhortation to sign a card or to join the Petitioner
before or after the election Simply stated, I find that
the Employer's objection and the evidence presented
in support thereof at best raise mere suspicions of
objectionable conduct, and suspicions are no substi-
tute for "substantial and material factual issues"
which must be raised before we direct a hearing
For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons stat-
ed in my dissenting opinions in the charter member-
ship cases,4 I would certify the Petitioner as the col-
lective-bargaining representative
4 Coleman, supra at 928, D A B, supra