Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

90 Fifty-Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Boardcation petition, the Board cited Hearst Corp.," in which it heldthat "a decertification petition will be valid only if, prior to anemployer's reliance on the petition, it has not engaged in conduct'designed to undermine employee support for, or cause their disaffectionwith, the union."As to whether the respondent had a good-faith doubt, basedon objective considerations, of the union's majority status, thefactors relied on by the respondent and the Board's reasoning inrejecting those factors were as follows:1. Limited participation in a strike. The Board noted that employees'nonparticipation in a strike does not mean rejection ofthe union. 7 82. Replacement of some strikers. The Board cited StationKKHP 9 for the proposition that "no presumptions should be appliedto determine the view of strike[r] replacements."3. Turnover in employees. The Board noted that it presumesnew employees support the union. 8° .4. Few employees authorizing dues deductions. The Boardstated "that majority support for [a union] is not to be confusedwith majority union membership."815. The filing of a decertification petition and the statement ofthe employee who filed the petition that she and other employees"felt" that a majority did not want the union. The Board statedthat "absent a definite showing that a majority of employeessigned in support of the petition, the petition, without more,would not justify a withdrawal of recognition or the making ofunilateral changes." 82 Further, the Board held that the employee'sstatement was "nothing more than conjecture and opinion."'"The Board stated that, when employees' "statements maybe deemed definite and reliable," they may support a finding ofreasonably based doubt of the union's majority status." However,employee statements purporting to represent the views ofother employees must be viewed with suspicion. and caution.Thus, when the employee did not name the other employees rejectingthe union," or employee assertions were unverified,"objective considerations were not established.Hospital Administrator Marzella testified regarding meetings inwhich employees expressed a desire not to be represented by theunion. He did not give names, or specific dates, or "set forth onespecific or definite statement made by any particular RN." Thus,TT 281 NLRB 764 (1986).78 Citing Mobile Home Estates, 259 NLRB 1384, 1404 (1982), enfd. in pertinent part 707 F.2d 264(6th Cir. 1983); Seebutg Corp., 192 NLRB 290, 304-305 (1971).78 284 NLRB No. 113 (July 27, 1987).80 Citing Laystrom MA. Ca, 151 NLRB 1482 (1965), enf. denied 359 F.2d 799 (7th Cir. 1966).85 See Atlanta Hilton & Towers, 278 NLRB 474 (1986).82 Citing Sanderson Farms, 271 NLRB 1477 (1984).83 Citing Atlanta Hilton, supra.84 Citing U-Save Food Warehouse, 271 NLRB 710, 717 (1984); Sole°, Inc., 268 NLRB 159 (1983).85 Redok Enterprises, 277 NLRB 1010 (1985).88 Cornell of California, 222 NLRB 303 (1976).