Host International, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 348 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Host International, Inc. and Hotel, Restaurant Em-
ployees & Bartenders ' Union, Local 5 , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case 37-RC-1678
February 10, 1972
DECISION ON REVIEW
AND
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
On November 11, 1971, the Regional Director for
Region 20 issued a Supplemental Decision and Direc-
tion of Second Election in the above-entitled proceed-
ing in which he sustained the Petitioner's Objection to
Conduct Affecting the Election Results,' set aside the
election, and directed a second election. Thereafter, in
accordance with the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, as amended, the Employer filed
a timely request for review of the Regional Director's
Supplemental Decision on the grounds, inter alia, that
in sustaining the Petitioner's initial objection, he de-
parted from precedent.
By telegraphic order dated December 9, 1971, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the Request
for Review and postponed the second election pending
decision on review.
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 considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the Regional Director's determina-
tion under review, and makes the following findings:
The facts are essentially undisputed. The election
took place on September 14, 1971, on the Island of
Oahu, Hawaii. The Employer's general manager, Rob-
ert Lew, held meetings with groups of employees, rang-
ing in number from 12 to 25: 1 on September 11, and
9 on September 12, lasting 1 hour each, from noon to
9 p.m. At each meeting Lew talked about the price
freeze, job security, and the benefits offered by Host. At
several of the meetings, employees asked Lew about
negotiations which would take place if the Union were
certified as their bargaining representative. At one of
the meetings, according to a witness, he responded that
I The tally of ballots for the election showed that of approximately 227
eligible voters, 86 cast ballots for and 116 cast ballots against the Petitioner,
and 1 ballot was challenged A supplemental objection filed by the Petitioner
was overruled by the Regional Director
"If the Union should come in, it is not a guarantee that
your wages are going to remain the same," and that "it
had to be negotiated and that we might have to start out
at $1.65 an hour." At another meeting , Lew stated "if
the Union were elected in, the company would start
negotiations at $1.65 an hour [Lew's understanding of
the Federal minimum wage , which in fact is $1.60]
straight across the board." At another meeting Lew
commented that "he knew of a place that went Union
and came out of negotiations with the employees end-
ing up with only four holidays." Another employee
testified Lew said: "If the Union got in that wage
negotiations would start at the federal minimum wage
... he could not guarantee all benefits we have now."
No witness testified that Lew said the Company would
actually lower wages prior to negotiations if the Peti-
tioner were certified.
The Regional Director determined that Lew's re-
marks clearly conveyed to all employees present threats
of loss of existing wages if they selected the Petitioner
as their representative, and that such threats materially
affected the outcome of the election. The Employer
contends that Lew's statements, in the context in which
they were made, did not convey such threats but merely
indicated, in response to employee questions, the possi-
ble consequences of negotiations.
The Board in considering the impact on employee
free choice of "bargaining from scratch" statements
like those here involved, has distinguished circum-
stances in which such remarks could reasonably be
read in context as a threat to discontinue existing
benefits from instances in which such remarks are
merely descriptive of the employer' s bargaining
strategy, designed to let employees know that unioniza-
tion does not mean automatic increases in benefits.' In
the instant case, we find no background of employer
conduct that might give a threatening color to the re-
marks made. Accordingly, the objections are overruled
and the results of the election are certified.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid votes
has not been cast for Hotel , Restaurant Employees &
Bartenders' Union Local 5, AFL-CIO , and that said
labor organization is not the exclusive representative of
the employees in the unit found appropriate within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
' .RW, Inc, 173 NLRB 1425, Trent Tube Co, 147 NLRB 538
195 NLRB No. 66