Calplant Engineering Service, Inc.

854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Calplant Constructors , a Division of Calplant Engi- neering Service, Inc. and International Union of Petroleum & Industrial Workers, Seafarers International Union of North America, AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Case 21-RC-17363 30 April 1986 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS DENNIS AND BABSON On 22 February 1985 the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued a Decision and Order' reversing the hearing officer's finding that a statement made by the Petitioner's representative, Earl Church, was objectionable under NLRB v. Savair Mfg. Co.2 and remanding the case to the hearing officer for specific findings of fact, including credibility reso- lutions, conclusions of law, and recommendations concerning other statements allegedly made by Church.3 In his supplemental report, the hearing officer specifically credited the testimony of employee David Rowbotham that Church told him at the Reef Restaurant approximately 2 weeks before the election, "If you sign now you won't have to pay the initiation fees," in reference to a union mem- berhsip card. The hearing officer also credited Rowbotham's testimony that when he asked Church why he should sign a card, Church replied, "[I]t gives me levering power to negotiate with the company when we do go in and you know, initi- ation fees are waived." Taking this testimony into consideration, the hearing officer nonetheless found that Church had not conditioned the waiver of ini- tiation fees on preelection support in contravention of Savair Mfg. Co. He, therefore, recommended overruling that portion of Objection 2 that per- tained to this incident. The Board, by a three-member panel, has consid- ered the hearing officer's supplemental report, the Employer's exceptions and supporting brief, and the Petitioner's responding brief, and has decided to reverse the hearing officer's finding that Church's statements were not objectionable. Contrary to the hearing officer, we find that the credited testimony of Rowbotham establishes that Church connected the waiver of the initiation fees with preelection support, namely, the signing of a union membership card. Thus, Church told Row- botham that if he signed the card "now" (2 weeks before the election), he would not have to pay any initiation fees. The clear implication of this state- ment is that a waiver is available only to those who sign cards before the election. Church's further statement concerning bargaining leverage and the waiver of initiation fees did not dispel the implica- tion of his earlier statement.4 Consequently, we find that Church clearly and unambiguously of- fered to waive initiation fees as an incentive for signing a membership card before the election. This is exactly the kind of solicitation of preelection support which the Supreme Court in Savair Mfg. Co. concluded should not be permitted because it gave other unit employees a misleading view of the actual union support before an election. According- ly, we sustain the portion of Objection 2 pertaining to this incident. On this basis, we find that the elec- tion must be set aside and a new election held. [Direction of Second Election omitted from pub- lication.] 1 274 NLRB 229 (1985) 2 414 U S 270 (1973) a In the absence of exceptions , the Board also adopted pro forma the hearing officer's recommendations to overrule all other objections to the election held 23 March 1984 * Member Babson, in agreeing with his colleagues, concludes that Church's further statement was ambiguous at best and that it was insuffi- cient to negate Church's prior statement which clearly conditioned the waiver of initiation fees on the signing of an authorization card before the election 279 NLRB No. 113