Con-Pac, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 466 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Con-Pac, Inc. and General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers , Local No . 270, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs,] Warehousemen and Helpers of America, IND.
Case 15-CA-4871
April 30, 1974
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On November 30, 1973, the National Labor
Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' finding that Respondent
had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
refusing to bargain with the certified Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit. In so finding, the Board adopted
the Regional Director's decision, in which he relied
on DIT-MCO, Inc.,2 in overruling the Respondent's
objection that the Union offered financial induce-
ments to the employees by waiver of initiation fees
and delay in the imposition of dues, and found that
the Respondent's exceptions did not raise material
issues of fact or law which would require reversal of
the Regional Director's decision. The Respondent,
thereafter, filed a motion to stay the matter pending
decision by the United States Supreme Court in
Savair Manufacturing Company.3 The Board denied
the motion and granted the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment.
In light of the recent Supreme Court decision in
N.L.R.B. v. Savair Mfg. Co.,4 the Board, sua sponte,
has decided to reconsider the instant case to
determine whether the Union's conduct is objection-
able under Savair.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
We see nothing in the Union's conduct which is
objectionable under Savair, supra. As the Supreme
Court observed in Savair, a union's offer to waive
initiation fees for all employees who sign union
authorization cards before a representation election
interferes with employee free choice in the election,
since it represents an outward manifestation of
support which serves as a useful campaign tool
1 207 NLRB No 105.
2 163 NLRB 1019, enfd 428 F.2d 775 (C.A. 8, 1970).
3 194 NLRB 298, enforcement denied 470 F.2d 305 (C A. 6, 1972)
because of peer group influence and thus, in effect,
"allows the union to buy endorsements." 5 We,
therefore , read the majority opinion in Savair as
finding improper any waiver of initiation fees limited
to the period before an election which can reason-
ably be construed as either an inducement to sign a
union authorization card or to vote for the union.
Here the Union offered to employees an across-the-
board waiver of initiation fees and a delay in the
imposition of dues and the waiver applied to all
"people presently working at Con-Pac at the time the
contract is ratified." Such a waiver, we conclude,
does not contain the elements of interference that the
Court focused on in Savair. The reasoning is
supported by the Court's opinion where the Court, in
pertinent part, stated:
The lower courts have recognized that promising
benefits or conferring benefits before representa-
tion elections may unduly influence the represent-
ational choices of employees where the offer is
not across the board to all employees but, as here,
only to those who sign up prior to the election.
(supra at 279, fn. 6)
Moreover, the Court recognized the union's legiti-
mate interest in waiving an initiation fee, where it
had not yet been chosen as the bargaining represent-
ative, in order to remove an "artificial obstacle" from
the employees' endorsement of the union and
declared "that this interest can be preserved . . . by
waiver of initiation fees available not only to those
who have signed up with the union before an election
but also to those who join after the election."6 Thus,
where, as here, the waiver was held open until a
contract was ratified, we find that such a waiver is
permissible under Savair. Accordingly, in the circum-
stances of this case, we reaffirm our original finding
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act by refusing to bargain with the certified
Union as the exclusive representative of the employ-
ees in the appropriate unit.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby affirms as its order the Order
heretofore entered in this proceeding on November
30, 1973.
4 414 U.S. 270 (1973).
5 Id. at 277.
6 Id at 274,fn.4
210 NLRB No. 70