*1 CELE- Before PHILLIPS Judges, BREZZE, McALLIS- Circuit TER, Judge. Senior Circuit Judge. CELEBREZZE, Circuit concerns Nation- The case before us finding, re- al Labor Relations Board’s ported & A that G at 168 N.L.R.B. Line, Inc., Truck violated Management Relations of the Labor question- Act, 29 U.S.C. § ing its about their mem- bership, sentiments, in and activities trying per- coercive manner by threats persuading them suade and *2 8(a) (5) (1) promises lations of and Section of to withdraw their and Therefore, A the found that G & Act. facts which The Board also cards. 8(a) (1) presented (5) of the relevant to this issue will be violated Section by (1) 158(a) Act, here. 29 U.S.C. § refusing bargain Inter- with Local to employs The Petitioner driv- about 50 Teamsters, national Brotherhood of Pigeon at ers its Three Rivers and White Helpers Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and employees terminals. These (hereinafter America, Independent, of represented by thirty the Union over for Union) presentation of author- after the years. employed at Also Petitioner’s two by majority of its ization cards a group terminals was an ununionized of appropriate helpers in an mechanics and consisting employees mechanics nine of bargaining unit. During and washers. December of 1966 Lines, hereinafter & A Truck G Hartsox, mechanic, Mike a Three Rivers Petitioner, to review asks Court this joining expressed the Union interest regard order, supra, to Board’s with Frain, Union to Mike steward (1), (5) and of violations Section gave Three Rivers. Frain him member- up- refusing recognize Union to i. e. ship which dis- authorization cards demand; Labor National while the employees. There tributed to the other Respondent Board, hereinafter Relations practices com- were no unfair enforce- Board, cross-petitioned for during organizational plained of this ment. period. reviewing Ex- The Board January 3, 1968, the re- On Union finding adopted aminer’s decision ceived from authorization cards 8(a) (1) that Petitioner violated Section eight employees in me- of the nine employees “by interrogating the Act of morning unit. Union chanics That Vice sentiments, membership, about Union presented President Brand six by activities; employees persuading Secretary, to Petitioner’s re- promises and threats benefit presentation The Jones. of this prisal authori- to their Union withdraw pro- recognition pursuant for to a applications mem- for zation cards and vision contained in drivers’ contract.1 bership; assisting them to with- copied six Jones then the names of the draw such cards.” employees talk with and stated President, not seek modifi Petitioner does Thomas MacNa- part final Board’s mara. called or talked with cation MacNamara Although signing not deal employee will order. each who confirmed findings here, upon we specifically afternoon with cards.2 In recognition presentation contains substan that the record of the do find Brand’s sign B. support agreement, them. N. refused to tial evidence MacNamara Corporation, pre- 351 F. for he status v. Cumberland doubted the by the Union. 2d sented out arises The issue before this Court Petitioner’s doubt rested the va- finding relating by Salisbury lidity vio- second contract, provision signatory check, entitled 1. of' the as their collec “This a Union Units,’ bargaining agent, follows: reads as shall auto ‘Non-Covered tive applicable matically by Agreement Agreement be shall not This be this covered Employer operations applicable Supplemental Agreements. where to those by may by employees parties collective covered a mu In such cases wage bargaining agreement agreement Union work out tual Agreement subject signatory schedule, those or to Area hour to Joint Com sig designated employees approval.” who have mittee natory collective as their part agent. At such as This constituted of the violations bargain appropriate in an of the Act not contest- such ing designate, a card ed evidenced here. unit Anderson. MacNamara called An- The Trial Examiner found that their drop home and asked him derson at cards were “void ab initio” due office discuss Union. When their reliance on the substantial arrived, MacNamara, Tom Glenn critical *3 McNamara, Jones, Salisbury Therefore, and John the Union. since a waiting were in office. presenta- With the did ex- not exist ception tion, Salisbury, men all were did Petitioner not have to bar- gain. However, officials Tom Petitioner. MacNa- the Board modified this signed finding mara asked stating Anderson if section of that “state- an [misrepresentations] authorization card. When type the answer ments “yes”, expressed determining was MacNamara dis- in immaterial the va- appointment lidity especially cards, since Anderson of authorization even when spoken him not about be- in with it reliance thereon.” The Na- signing. fore In tional before the Labor Relations Board character- Examiner, representations his ized puffing. Anderson related as mere conversation with MacNamara fol- question The before this Court is lows: whether the statements made organizer coupled with the testi- yes, T him I “Anderson: told did.’ mony of Anderson invalidate ab said, you And he T wish had come and initio, the authorization cards of Salis- said, ‘Well, they talked to I me first.’ bury and Anderson. everybody said else brought The cases most often except Salisbury card Kike and I were purpose this Court it,’ with dual only dealt ones who hadn’t misrepresenta- and and I said ‘It makes no difference to tions as to which me. I were unions all of the Corporation time, to be used. might Pizza Products join and I as well B„ (6th v. N. L. F.2d again.’ R. 369 431 any Cir. That it make didn’t 1966); L.N. R. B. v. Cumberland me, joined3 Shoe difference to and so I I Corp., (6th 1965). 351 F.2d 917 Cir. the card. And Tom showed me though question Here no, is two fold: a I take that back. Tom list — 1) having whether Union claim of a didn’t. list. That showed me signed everyone merely puffing, Salisbury, Salisbury else Kike —Clifton misrepresentation 2) a myself material and and the first that two or. —were misrepresentation, said, if was a signed.’ ‘Well, it material I And what prevent was their such as to a They reliance told me that heck. we were freedom of choice? sign.’ said, I last ‘In that two to just a I letter and tell case will write This Court is of the that I them to out. cancel me want with- the statements made Petitioner draw.’ And Mr. McNamara —Glenn be on behalf of union were in fact mis said, up spoke McNamara —he representations puffing. The you give copy let- ‘Will that me statements were and meant false mis

ter?’, said, T I sure And would.’ employees. lead N. the two L. R. B. v. company, I wrote a letter to the so Delight (6th Bakery, 353 344 F.2d give copy, union a I Glenn 1965), Cir. R. B. N. L. v. Cumberland copy.” kept copy, Corp., (6th 1965); 351 Cir. F.2d 917 Corporation see Pizza Products v. L.N. representations undisputed is It B., (6th 1966). R. 369 F.2d Cir. Anderson were sign. last misrep- were the We now consider whether undisputed misleading and An- resentations also de- sign. gree impairing the first derson were in fact freedom of choice. emphasis placed any It is Anderson it did not make well to note fact differ- joined. ence himto so 1965), dealing Co., unedu- N. L. R. B. v. Austin Powder with naive We are (6th 1965). case. Here Salis- F.2d 973 Cir. cated workers bury former union Anderson replete record The evi fully cognizant They members.4 finding supporting dence Board’s of what methods used successfully the General Counsel rec- organizing. We believe that proving met the burden a freedom a whole ord as substantiates B., Drug faith. bad Lane Co. v. N. choice, and further 1968), 391 F.2d 812 cert. de signed the authori- would have 114, 21 L. nied 393 89 S.Ct. U.S. misrep- regardless of the zation cards 1968) (Oct. 15, (No. Ed.2d 108 Provisions, Pride resentations. Home B., Corp. See Pizza R. Products N. L. *4 Inc., (1966). This is 161 N.L.R.B. 47 (6th 1966), 369 F.2d N. L. B. 431 Cir. R. Anderson, of evidenced the Co., Equipment v. Power F.2d 438 313 to, the hereinabove referred (6th 1963). Cir. This is full Court Examiner. agreement Trial Examiner’s with the partial is concluded that there the Section

We have summation of support find the of Act substantial evidence to ings violations the wherein six authoriza of the Board the states: presented by cards the tion interroga- widespread “The unlawful Engine Works, Inc. v. valid. Atlas tion, specific unlawful co- the (6th B., Cir. N. F.2d 775 396 pressure put the ercive on four of me- Super 1968); B. v. Clean 1967). N. L. Swan R. chanics induce them to withdraw to Inc., (6th ers, 384 F.2d 609 Cir. strongly their union authorization majority present did Since the Union negates Respondent claim the cards, con will now valid of any Union’s bona fide doubt about the to refusal bar Petitioner’s sider whether majority January on and after status Dayco good gain Cor faith. Cf. was strongly supports as the con-

poration B., F.2d 577 L. 382 v. N. R. Respondent prompt- clusion that ly acted (6th 1967). Cir. dissipate after Union demand to the majority indicated its the status the re- whether We must determine bargain good cards.” faith fusal to based gain play tactical or was a doubt occurred The activities referred above majority dissipate the status. in order to presentation authori- after the of designed to under- zation cards and were that violations of is true majority of Union. mine status the the occurring Act Corp., N. L. R. B. v. Cumberland Shoe organizational campaign during a union Skyline (6th 1965); 351 F.2d 917 Cir. standing may sufficient to alone not be B., Inc. L. F.2d 642 Homes v. N. R. 323 good part negate of faith doubt (5th 1963), L. B. cf. N. R. v. Cac- Cir. Drug management. Peoples Service (5th Inc., Petroleum, tus 355 F.2d 755 B., Store, 551 v. N. L. 375 F.2d Inc. R. 1966). questioning the Cir. Instead of However, 1967). (6th the where Cir. majority cards claim of status when the practices employer’s unfair presented, first the Petitioner em- clearly after the established campaign the ma- barked on jority. to reduce may made, in violations demand is assertions Petitioner’s dicate good spurious. N. L. find that order of the faith doubt We the final Duthler, F.2d 28 supported by Ben

R. B. v. Board substantial evi 1968), Engine Works, (6th Cumber Inc. N. R. B. v. dence. L. Atlas Cir. (6th B., (6th Cir. Corp., 351 F.2d 917 N. L. R. 396 F.2d 775 land Cir. years Team- been member of Union about five and had a with- years. years. for three over 12 drawal card locals for sters member of the Machinists been a 1968), misleading men, R. B. v. nite L. Cumberland Shoe N. two Corp., 351 F.2d who cards be- representa- cause of such fraudulent petition aside set tions, how do we know that is denied and of the Board order any event, as found hereby cross-petition for enforcement Board, decision, point, whose on this granted. majority affirms? Judge McALLISTER, Senior Circuit The trial examiner found that Ander- (dissenting). son and the authoriza- upon tion cards entire case rests This validi- officials, union 'the and that signed by ty of the authorization ef- signing cause of Salisbury. Anderson and If these ficient misrepresentation “was flat invalid, would not have already status.” employees. had a hearing findings feel that examiner’s The trial examiner found of- against con- be sustained represented An- ficials the union appear clusions of Board. It would em- derson and all unjustifiable me to be aside set *5 ployees except union, of the mechanics’ findings hearing examiner, authorizing themselves, signed had cards witnesses, ground who heard the the agent. the union to act as that the “freedom of choice” of Ander- majority not The fact was had that Salisbury impaired, son and was not al- signed and, the cards the without though given by this was not the excuse authorizations of Anderson and Salis- disregard the that Board caused it to the bury, union the would not have had a findings of trial examiner. the employees authorizing it to bargaining agent. quoted in act their After Anderson’s As mat- fact, accompanying opinion, the Ander- ter no one had when Salisbury before learned not the Anderson and in- son that he was one were join repre- duced the last to union as union the fraudulent sign. and, therefore, sented wanted to cancel card, his authorization he further frank- The trial examiner found that the au- ly testified that he said another em- signed by thorization Anderson ployee, going union “there was to be a initio, void due were ab * * * day join I will the union. some employees to the reliance of such * * * going to be union all over It’s misrepresenta- substantial critical going country. the know it’s to be However, the tions made union. day.” way But, he some as soon as Board, review, par- reversed this representations, he heard false holding, stating ticular such mis- stating wrote union “at representations puffing. were mere join time” he didn’t want would prevailing court, In the application like to have his card back. it held that made the statements puffing, union were not but were that when 'testified false and meant to mislead falsely him learned the told union Salisbury into, believing that a everybody group in the else already signed Anderson were and that he and with the union. held in also two, the last whereas no one prevailing opinion that, repre- while the Anderson, it him him and made sentations were false and meant mis- used to se- mad and he felt had been employees, lead the two their freedom rest of cure authorization from impaired. choice was not mechanics; he forthwith wrote asking But when we his find fraudulent return false and union them to representations card. authorization with the defi- were Anderson and true that It is members; I do but union former that, as for- said it can be feel not fully members, they were union mer rep- and fraudulent cognizant false by the used methods resentations organizing, should and we union methods such consider that asked be customarily, frequently, constitute organizing. operandi of a modus An- cards of Without Salisbury, would derson representative of been al- question employees in- methods leged unfair no in, there dulged against petitioners. case ,is foregoing, it In accordance set aside petition to

my view that granted be should Board order enforcement cross-petition for denied. be. *6 BECK, Superintendent of Henry

Captain Farm; County Penal Pulaski Cavin, Surety, Appellants, Clint WINTERS, Appellee.

Robert

No. 19278. Appeals States

United Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 1969. 16, 1969. Denied June

Certiorari 89 S.Ct. See