Detroit Receiving Hospital And University Health Center

DETROIT HOSPITAL Detroit Receiving Hospital and University Health Center and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees , Michigan Council No. 25, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 7- RC-16125 23 December 1985 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON The National Labor Relations Board, by a three- member panel, has considered objections to an election held 14 December 1984 and the hearing officer's, report recommending disposition of them. The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulat- ed Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 211 for and 145 against the Petitioner, with 42 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the results. The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, has adopted the hearing officer's findings and recommendations,' as modi- fied below, and finds that a_certification of repre- sentative should be issued. In Objection 8, the Employer alleged that the Petitioner contravened NLRB v. Savair Mfg Co., 414 U.S. 270 (1973), by offering to waive initiation fees in exchange for preelection support. In support of this objection, employee Reginald Goodwin tes- tified that a week or two before the election the Petitioner's representative Roy Gonzalez told him, in the presence of two other employees, "if we signed the green card, we would not have to pay any initiation fee." The green card is an authoriza- tion card. According to Goodwin, Gonzalez did not state when the card had to be signed to qualify for the waiver of initiation fees or that employees who did not sign would have to pay initiation fees. Goodwin admitted he did not sign a card and the hearing officer discredited his claim that he told other employees about Gonzalez' statement. The hearing officer, on the other hand, credited testi- mony that the Petitioner's policy is not to charge any initiation fees in the State of Michigan. Gonza- lez testified that he informed employees of this policy in employee meetings. The hearing officer found that Gonzalez did not distinguish between employees who signed a card before the election and those who signed after the election and, therefore, Gonzalez' statement did not i In adopting the hearing officer's recommendation that Objection I be overruled, we rely solely on his conclusion that the Employer failed to meet its burden of proving that the Petitioner was responsible for provid- ing the illegal substances at the preelection party 1225 contravene Savair. In response to the Employer's contention that Gonzalez' statement constituted an ambiguous offer to waive initiation fees, the hear- ing officer found that Gonzalez had made a mere statement of fact, namely, that it cost nothing to sign an authorization card, and had not made an offer to waive initiation fees. On these grounds, the hearing officer recommended overruling the objec- tion. We agree that the objection should be overruled, but not for these reasons. We find merit in the Em- ployer's contention that Gonzalez' statement to Goodwin was ambiguous because he did not state when the card had to be signed to avoid the initi- ation fees or explain that the waiver of initiation fees was available both before and after the elec- tion. Nevertheless, we find that this ambiguity was sufficiently clarified by the Union and, therefore, Gonzalez' statement does not warrant setting aside the election. The Board has long held that unions have a duty to clarify any ambiguity in an offer to waive initi- ation fees or suffer whatever consequences might attach to employees' possible interpretations of the ambiguity.2 We find the Union met its duty in this case. According to the evidence which the hearing officer specifically credited, the Petitioner's policy and practice is not to require initiation fees from any of its members working in the State of Michi- gan. Further, according to the undisputed testimo- ny of the Petitioner's staff coordinator, Flora Walker, whom the hearing officer credited without exception on other points, the employees were in- formed at meetings that the Petitioner had not charged any initiation fees since 1966.3 Thus, Gon- zalez' statement to Goodwin occurred in the over- all context of other clarifying statements that it had been the Petitioner's policy and practice for 18 years never to charge initiation fees. Moreover, Gonzalez' conduct as attested to by Goodwin was isolated and on this basis as well we find it does not warrant setting aside the election. Only Goodwin and two other employees out of a unit of over 500 were present when Gonzalez made his statement about the initiation fees. The hearing officer specifically discredited Goodwin's testimony that he told other employees about this statement. Further, Goodwin admitted he did not sign a card and no evidence was presented that z Inland Shoe Mfg Co, 211 NLRB 724 (1974) a The hearing officer failed to make a definite credibility finding on Gonzalez' testimony which included his statement that he told employees at a meeting of the Petitioner's policy Thus, although he describes Gon- zalez' testimony as unreliable he notes at fn 5 of his report, "Gonzalez may have generally told the employees the Petitioner does not require payment of initiation fees " 277 NLRB No. 132 1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD either of the other employees did. In this context, we find that Gonzalez' statement does not consti- tute objectionable conduct.4 CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE IT IS CERTIFIED hat a majority of the valid bal- lots have been cast for American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Michigan Council No. 25, AFL-CIO, and that it is the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time service and maintenance employees and technical employ- ees employed by the Employer at its facility located at 4201 St. Antoine, Detroit, Michigan, including all Anesthesia Services Assistants, Building Operators, Carpenters, Central Supply Assistants, Computerized Tomography Radiologists, Copy Center Coordinators, Cyto- technologists, Dental Assistants, Dieners, Die- tetic Technicians, Driver/Material Handlers, ECG Technicians I, ECG Technicians II, Electricians, Electronics Control Technicians, Emergency Assistants, Endoscopy Techni- cians, First Cooks, Food Service Aides, Grill ° See GTE Lenkurt, Inc, 215 NLRB 321, 322 (1974), where the Board found, inter aha, that statements concerning the preelection waiver of ini- tiation fees to three employees were isolated and insignificant considering the size of the 835-member voting unit Cooks, Groundskeepers, Histology Techni- cians, Housekeepers I, Housekeepers II, Li- censed Practical Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses-Medications, Licensed Practical Nurses-Par-Licensed Practical Nurses-Radiolo- gy, Linen Distribution Coordinators, Material Handlers, Mechanical Repairmen, Medical Laboratory Assistants, Non-Invasive Techni- cians, Nuclear Medicine Technologists, Nurs- ing Assistants, Occupational Therapy Aides, Operating Room Assistants, Orthopedic Assist- ants, Painters, Patient Care Assistants, Patient Transportation Assistants, Patient Transport- ers, Pharmacy Attendants, Pharmacy Packag- ing Technicians, Pharmacy Technicians, Phys- ical Therapy Aides, Plumbers, Polytomo- graphy Radiographers, Psychiatric Emergency Assistant, Psychiatric Emergency Assistants- Triage, Pulmonary Function Technicians, Quality Assurance Radiographers, Radio- graphers, Radiology Assistants, Refrigeration Equipment Operators, Refrigeration Mechan- ics, Reproduction/Bindery Clerks, Respiratory Technicians, Respiratory Therapy Assistants, Special Procedures Radiographers, Surgical Technicians, Transporters, Triage Nurses and Ultrasound Techologists; but excluding all business and office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees in classifications not listed above.