Con-Pac, Inc.

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