Host International, Inc.

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