Opinion ID: 405327
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Validity of the Authorization Cards

Text: 36 In this case, the Board determined that the Company's fabrication shop employees constitute an appropriate bargaining unit under section 9(b) of the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 159(b) (1976). This unit included fourteen employees in September 1977, eleven of whom signed union authorization cards. The Company challenges the validity of this card majority, however, contending that certain employees were told that the cards would be used to obtain a Board election. The Company argues that the cards therefore cannot be used to establish majority support for the Union. 37 The Company's challenge to the validity of the cards falls short. The cards that the employees signed were unambiguous, single-purpose cards which authorize (the Union) to represent (the signatory) in collective bargaining negotiations on all matters pertaining to rates of pay, hours or any other condition of employment. Jt.App. 100-07, 118-20. Where cards are so plain on their face in designating the Union as bargaining agent, their validity can be undercut only if they were solicited by representations that the only purpose was to obtain an election, or there is some other clear evidence of 'gross misstatement' that would undermine the validity of a signed authorization card. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. NLRB, 420 F.2d 1296, 1301 (D.C.Cir.1969) (per curiam) (footnote omitted); see NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. at 601-10, 89 S.Ct. at 1933-38. The evidence presented to the Board in this case did not establish that Union representatives told employees that the sole purpose of the authorization cards was to obtain an election. 14 Nor was there evidence of gross misstatements which would negate the cards' plain, unambiguous language. We therefore uphold the Board's conclusion that the authorization cards in this case were reliable indicators of majority support for the Union. 15 38