Opinion ID: 186939
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Waiver of the Union Initiation Fee

Text: 16 U-Haul's burden is to show that Union misconduct interfered with the employees' exercise of free choice to such an extent that it materially affected the election, C.J. Krehbiel Co., 844 F.2d at 882. To that end, the Company argues first that the Union's promise to waive initiation fees for employees who joined the Union prior to the election is objectionable, as it creates the false impression of employee support and a sense of obligation to the Union, see NLRB v. Savair Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 270, 277-78, 94 S.Ct. 495, 38 L.Ed.2d 495 (1973). 17 This argument rests upon the faulty premise that the Union's offer was conditioned upon the employee joining the Union prior to the election. The hearing officer specifically found the Union offered, in writing and orally at meetings, to waive the initiation fees for, as stated in a Union flyer, all employees who join ... in a newly organized shop, not only for those who joined before the election. This put the Union's offer squarely within the category deemed permissible in Savair, 414 U.S. at 272 n. 4, 94 S.Ct. 495; see Majestic Star Casino, LLC v. NLRB, 373 F.3d 1345, 1349 (D.C.Cir.2004) (Under judicial and Board precedent, an offer to waive initiation fees in not impermissible unless it is conditioned upon an employee's demonstration of support for the union). 18 Substantial evidence supports the hearing officer's finding that the waiver of fees was not conditioned upon the employee's demonstrated support for the Union. Several employees testified that one or another Union supporter told them the fee waiver was conditioned upon support for the Union. The hearing officer, however, found that none of the testimony credibly supports that claim and, although there was testimony suggesting that one employee, Don Collette, who was an enthusiastic Union supporter, made such statements to two other employees, the hearing officer found Collette's denial more credible than the conflicting testimony. The hearing officer reasoned it was inherently implausible that Collette was making statements to other employees that contradicted the plethora of documents that [the] Union was using during the organizing campaign as well as what the Union officials stated at meetings. 19 A hearing officer's credibility determinations may not be overturned [by the reviewing court] absent the most extraordinary circumstances such as utter disregard for sworn testimony or the acceptance of testimony which is on its fac[e] incredible. E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc. v. NLRB, 84 F.3d 1443, 1444-45 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted, alteration in original). No such showing has been made here; the record supports the finding that the Union did not condition waiver of the initiation fee upon an employee's supporting the Union before the election. 20