Opinion ID: 271312
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: I was at home with my family.

Text: 75 Q. Was any union representative present? 76 A. No, no one was present. 77 Q. Was any other employee of Bauer Welding Company present? 78 A. No. 79 Q. Was the time that you returned the card near the date there? 80 A. Yes, it was, I believe, the following day the card was returned. 81 Q. At the time that you signed that card, did you personally want the union to represent you? 82 A. I wasn't sure, because I didn't know anything about it. I never worked in a union shop before, so I had no knowledge of it, outside of the letter which I had received with it. I talked to very few, so my information was very scarce. 83 The Board objects to the admission of such testimony on the basis of language to which we lend approval in Colson Corp. v. N. L. R. B., supra, at page 135 of 347 F.2d, wherein we acknowledge that an employee's after-thoughts as to why he signed a union authorization card could not negate his overt action of having signed the card. There can be no doubt that this is the general rule without misrepresentation being present. Misrepresentation, however, is present herein to the extent that petitioner's employees relied on the letter and believed that they were only showing a desire to have an election by signing the cards. Without this qualification, a union could be blatantly guilty of the most flagrant misrepresentation and be protected through the disallowance of any employee's testimony, once the employee signed the authorization card. Cf., Restatement of Torts, § 525 (1938). See, N. L. R. B. v. Peterson Bros., Inc., 5 Cir., 1965, 342 F.2d 221, 224. 84 Even without considering the testimony of the employees as to why they signed the cards, there still is strong and persuasive evidence indicating that many of the employees who signed the cards did not intend anything more than just authorizing an election by their act. The strongest evidence is the May 19, 1964, letter itself. Further evidence indicates that Johnson, who signed the letter, told Gerald Wachowiak, in a telephone conversation which took place on or about June 2, 1964, that: 85 A. Well, he said that they had a majority of the cards, and that after he received a few more cards, there would then be an election. 86 Q. Mr. Johnson told you at that point that there would be an election, is that correct? 87 A. Yes. 88 Respondent, in effect, contends that the follow-up letter sent out by the Union on May 26, 1964, set out supra, cleared up any ambiguity present from the original May 19, 1964, letter. It is not necessary to rule on this contention since it is clear from the evidence that all authorization cards submitted were dated on or before May 26, 1964, at a time prior to when the May 26, 1964, letter came out. Thus, the May 26, 1964, letter could not have had any bearing herein. 89 Under these circumstances, the Board's holding that the Union represented a majority of petitioner's employees is not based on substantial evidence, is completely erroneous and must be set aside. The Board itself, along with a number of courts, has lent support to the proposition that where employees are misled into signing authorization cards through the belief that by so signing they are requesting an election only, the union holding such signed cards is not necessarily the bargaining representative for the persons so signing the cards. See Englewood Lumber Co., 1961, 130 N.L.R.B. No. 394, wherein the Board states at pages 394-395: 90 Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the union authorization cards, urged by the General Counsel as establishing such majority status, were unreliable for this purpose. As set forth in more detail in the Intermediate Report, the Union did not tell the employees that by signing the cards they were authorizing the Union to represent them; rather, the employees were told that the cards were necessary in order that the Board might conduct an election by secret ballot in which every employee would have an opportunity to express his preference. Ten employees who had signed cards testified that when solicited they were told that the cards were for a Board election. Bentley, a leader in soliciting, testified that he told practically everyone he talked to that the cards would be sent to the Board so that a secret election could be held. In these circumstances, considering only what the employees were told, and not what may or may not have been their subjective reaction to what they were told, we do not think it can reasonably be said that the employees, by their act of signing authorizations, thereby clearly manifested an intention to designate the Union as their bargaining representative. 91 In N. L. R. B. v. Koehler, 7 Cir., 1964, 328 F.2d 770, the court, in finding that the Board's conclusion as to representation was clearly erroneous, stated at page 773, that it reached its decision 92    in view of the overwhelming proof that many employees signed cards because they were promised that such cards were to be used for the purpose of obtaining an election, with a secret ballot, to be conducted by the Board. 93 In doing so, the court set aside the Board's finding that the union represented a majority of the employees at the time it sought recognition as the bargaining agent. 94 In N. L. R. B. v. Peterson Bros., Inc., supra, the court held that because of an ambiguity in the authorization card the holding of the Board as to representation was clearly erroneous. Therein Chief Judge Tuttle stated, at page 224 of 342 F.2d: 95 In view of the language on the face of the card that `this is not an application for membership' and the language that in the alternative it is `for an NLRB election' we think there was a burden on the General Counsel to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the signer of the card did, in effect, what he would have done by voting for the union in a Board election. We think that in refusing to consider the subjective intent of the signer of the card, in light of the ambiguity on the face of the card, the Board erred. Upon a careful examination of the record we conclude that the trial examiner correctly found that the designation cards signed by Rhodes and Wright were not valid designations for the union. We conclude that the Board's finding to the contrary is not based on substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 96 The court denied enforcement of the § 8 (a)(5) charges. In so doing, it cited with approval N. L. R. B. v. Koehler, supra. In critical mood, Judge Tuttle stated at page 225: 97 It would be very simple for the union to prepare a card that in an unambiguous form would authorize union representation as a bargaining agent. If the union also wished to have cards signed to call an election this would also be a very simple matter. There can be little excuse for combining the two in a card that makes possible the misrepresentation that the Board found to have existed   . 98 In the instant case the authorization card clearly and without ambiguity designated the Union as the employees' bargaining agent. The covering letter, however, is most ambiguous and most misleading. It could well be classified as intentional double-talk. The effect of the covering letter herein is no different from the effect of the authorization card in Peterson Bros. 99 In N. L. R. B. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 6 Cir., 1965, 341 F.2d 750, certiorari denied, 382 U.S. 830, 86 S.Ct. 69, 15 L.Ed. 2d 74, the court, while finding that the Board held correctly that a majority of the employees had authorized the union to be their bargaining representative nevertheless stated at page 754: 100 The decisions of the Board as well as the opinions of the courts place more emphasis upon the representations made to the employees at the time the cards were signed than upon the language set forth in the cards. If in fact misrepresentations are made by the union to employees to the effect that the only purpose of the card is to authorize the union to petition the Board for an election, the card will not be construed to authorize representation, even though it contains language to that effect. N. L. R. B. v. Koehler, 328 F.2d 770 (C.A. 7); Englewood Lumber Company, 130 N.L.R.B. 394. 101 We have considered the cases cited to us by respondent and find them to be factually distinguishable and of no persuasive support. 102 We have examined the record herein in detail and conclude that the Board's findings with reference to violations of § 8 (a)(1) and (2) are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Board's order with reference to § 8(a) (1) and (2) violations will be enforced. There is, however, no substantial evidence supporting the § 8(a) (5) charges. Therefore, those portions of the Board's order and appendix dealing with the § 8(a) (5) violations need not be complied with by petitioner insofar as they contemplate the Union as being the exclusive bargaining representative of petitioner's employees. 103 Enforced as modified.