N.L.R.B. v. Aladdin Hotel Corp., 77-3979
| Citation | 584 F.2d 891 |
| Decision Date | 23 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-3979,77-3979 |
| Parties | 100 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2202, 84 Lab.Cas. P 10,907 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. ALADDIN HOTEL CORPORATION, d/b/a Aladdin Hotel, Respondent. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Paul J. Spielberg (argued), Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Stuart Herman (argued), John A. Lawrence (argued) of Richman & Herman, Beverly Hills, Cal., for respondent.
On Application For Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.
Before CHOY and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and SCHNACKE, * District judge.
The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of an order requiring the employer to bargain with a union certified as a bargaining agent, after a board supervised election. The Board's decisions certifying the union and ordering the employer to bargain are reported at 229 NLRB 499 (1977) and 232 NLRB 153 (1977), respectively. We decline to enforce the order for reasons given below.
In September 1975 a union attempted to organize the clerical employees of the Aladdin Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada. 1 It was a policy of the union to announce a reduction in its initiation fee from $50 to $25 as an inducement to obtain new members. Accordingly, the union sent a letter to all members of the proposed bargaining unit on or about September 9, 1975. The letter stated in part:
Our Executive Board has authorized a reduction of the $50.00 initiation fee to $25.00 for this organizing campaign. When you send in your forms be sure to send $25.00 plus $12.00 dues. These monies will be held in escrow and the dues will apply to the first month after you approve your first labor agreement. If less than a majority send in monies, they will be refunded. If we go to an election and it proves unsuccessful the monies are forfeit.
The quicker you send in the paper work and monies the quicker we can Help you. We will try to avoid meetings if possible, as a vast majority have been to them in the past. NOW IS THE TIME FOR ACTION.
(Emphasis in original).
The election was held on October 23, 1975, and the employees voted in favor of the union. 2 No issue is raised regarding the balloting.
The employer contends that the reasonable interpretation of the offer to reduce initiation fees is that it promises a reduction only if the employee joins the union during the period before the election. If so construed, the dues reduction offer would interfere with the employees' free and fair choice of a bargaining representative under the rule of NLRB v. Savair Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 270, 276, 94 S.Ct. 495, 38 L.Ed.2d 495 (1973). We agree with the employer's interpretation of the offer.
The letter promised a reduction "for this organizing campaign." The Board contends that this phrase properly is interpreted to include both the period before the election and the period after the election, during which the collective bargaining agreement is being negotiated. If the Board's views are correct, the offer would have been a legitimate one under the Savair decision, 414 U.S. at 274 n. 4, 94 S.Ct. 495; Accord, NLRB v. Aaron Brothers Corp., 563 F.2d 409, 412 (9th Cir. 1977), but we cannot adopt the Board's construction of the letter. We think the term "organizing campaign" almost certainly would be interpreted by employees as applying to the period before the election but not after. An organizing campaign is generally thought of as being over once the election is held. The Board has noted that Deming Division, Crane Co., 225 NLRB 657 (1976).
On September 9, at the outset of the campaign and contemporaneously with sending the letter in question, the union held a meeting with ten to twelve employees present. There is evidence the union president explained then that the fee reduction offer would apply during contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. Tio Pepe, Inc.
...N. L. R. B. v. Savair Mfg. Co., (1973) 414 U.S. 270, 278-79, n. 6, 94 S.Ct. 495, 499-500, 38 L.Ed.2d 495; N. L. R. B. v. Aladdin Hotel Corp., (9th Cir. 1978) 584 F.2d 891, 893. The Board dismissed the significance of these statements by the waiters and busboys that the captains had promised......
-
Tanforan Park Food Purveyors Council v. N.L.R.B.
...waiver is communicated in such a confusing fashion that it implies that waiver hinges on pre-election support. NLRB v. Aladdin Hotel Corp., 584 F.2d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 1978). The disputed statements do not violate these principles of the election process. The letter states that a Union cont......
-
Levitz Furniture Co. of Santa Clara, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...Cir., 1978); NLRB v. Aaron Bros. Corp., 563 F.2d 409, 412-3 (9th Cir., 1977). In these respects, it differs from NLRB v. Aladdin Hotel Corp., 584 F.2d 891 (9th Cir., 1978). This is not a case, like NLRB v. Gorbea, Perez & Morrell, S. en C., 328 F.2d 679 (1st Cir., 1964), in which the union'......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Masonic Homes of California, Inc.
...interpretation of the offer is contrary to the requirements of Savair, then the election should be set aside." NLRB v. Aladdin Hotel Corp., 584 F.2d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 1978). Employee Izquierdo's affidavit said that a Union representative "told me to sign the (authorization) card right away......