Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

120 Fifty-Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Boardately engaging in a "futile act" because dues could not bechecked off if the union were not the employees' lawful bargainingrepresentative. The court thus concluded that "Wile cardmust be given some effect" and that "can be done only if it iseffective to give authority to bargain collectively." 130 F.2d at404.The Board majority found that the language of the checkoffform, as well as the testimony of the cardsigners, substantiallysupported the conclusion that representation by the union wascontemplated and that, in the absence of a union-security clause,they could envision no other explanation for the voluntary signingof a dues-checkoff card. In this regard, they found their holdingin the case to be consistent with the Supreme Court's decisionin NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co. 158 The Board majority concludedthat the union had obtained the support of a majority ofthe employer's employees by virtue of the signed dues-checkoffcards and authorization cards obtained by the union during theorganizational campaign and, on the basis of that majority showingand the unfair labor practices found to have been committedby the employer, issued a bargaining order.Chairman Dotson and Member Johansen dissented on thegrounds that the dues-checkoff cards did not, in their view, constituteevidence of the cardsigner's support for the union. Rather,citing Cumberland Shoe Corp. 159 and Levi Strauss & Co.,'" theypointed out that the Board has long held that, when the purposeof a card is clearly and unambiguously stated on its face, itwould give effect to the card's stated purpose and would not inquireinto the cardsigner's subjective intent when signing thecard. They further noted that in Gissel Packing, the SupremeCourt upheld that view by stating that "employees should bebound by the clear language of what they sign unless that languageis deliberately and clearly canceled by a union adherentwith words calculated to direct the signer to disregard andforget the language above his signature." 395 U.S at 606.Chairman Dotson and Member Johansen would have foundthat the language on the face of the dues-checkoff cards clearlyindicated that they were intended to serve as nothing more thanan authorization for the deduction of fees and dues, and thatthere was nothing on the face of the card to suggest that its executionwas to be construed either as an expression of the signer'ssupport for the union or as an authorization to the union to representthe signer for collective-bargaining purposes. Thus, theywould not have counted the dues-checkoff cards as evidence ofemployee support for the union and, as the union had failed to' 58 395 U.S. 575 (1969).155 144 NLRB 1268 (1963), enfd. 351 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965).1" 172 NLRB 732 (1968).